Speaker 1: His plan is one hundred percent supported by our government.
Speaker 1: One supported by our government. It was resolved by.
Speaker 2: Cabin Once upon a time in the not too distant past,
Speaker 2: a Liberal leader frantic cameras dispute the economic benefits of
Speaker 2: net zero.
Speaker 1: The Coalition is rock solid on pursuing this plan because
Speaker 1: this protects jobs, it protects livelihoods, and it protects a
Speaker 1: way of life for rural and regional Australia.
Speaker 2: Now, just four years later, despite supporting it herself, Susan
Speaker 2: Lee is set to dump net zero so her party
Speaker 2: won't dump her. But if the party is right winning
Speaker 2: the battle on climate policy, they're also set to win
Speaker 2: the war within the Liberal Party. Betsy Now on when,
Speaker 2: not if, Lee will lose leadership. I'm Daniel James and
Speaker 2: you're listening to seven AM today. Contributing editor of the
Speaker 2: New Daily, Amy Remikiez on the coalition's civil war on
Speaker 2: climate policy and how it lets labor off the hook.
Speaker 2: It's Saturday, November eight Amy, Susan Lee looks set to
Speaker 2: walk away from net zero to save her leadership. Tell
Speaker 2: me about how the fight over net zero is currently
Speaker 2: playing out within the Liberal Party.
Speaker 3: Well, it actually started about six months ago, this most
Speaker 3: recent blow up over climate when the Nationals started making
Speaker 3: a lot of noise about net zero, and Barnaby Joyce
Speaker 3: and Matt Canavan in particular, we're out and about saying
Speaker 3: we don't want to be part of net zero. We
Speaker 3: think it's costing too much money. We want to bring
Speaker 3: this policy down.
Speaker 4: Currently we're not getting a good deal from net zero.
Speaker 4: It's been a bit of a scam where bankers and
Speaker 4: big business makes money and small businesses, families have to
Speaker 4: pay more. Power prices have gone up forty percent since
Speaker 4: we signed up to net zero, both electrics and.
Speaker 3: We saw that when the National Party threatened to walk
Speaker 3: away from the coalition almost as soon as Susan.
Speaker 5: Lee became a leader.
Speaker 3: I mean, David Little Proud was trying to contact Susan
Speaker 3: Lee as she was trying to handle her mother's death.
Speaker 3: It was brutal and it hasn't really stopped being that brutal.
Speaker 5: It's just gone a little bit more. Under the covers.
Speaker 6: Are United Front, the National Party in lockstep on abandoning
Speaker 6: a net zero targety. A little while ago informed the
Speaker 6: Opposition leader Susan Lee of the National Party's decision to
Speaker 6: scrap net zero by twenty fifty.
Speaker 3: So the Nationals have officially walked away from net zero,
Speaker 3: which is where we always knew that they were going
Speaker 3: to go.
Speaker 1: We continue to believe that we need to reduce emissions,
Speaker 1: but we've got to do it in a better fare
Speaker 1: and cheaper way for all Austrains.
Speaker 3: The right of the Liberal Party want to follow, and
Speaker 3: they're getting very very low about wanting to follow.
Speaker 5: So that's your angus.
Speaker 3: Taylor, You're Andrew Hasty, You're Sarah Henderson, mikayliea Cash.
Speaker 2: We can't keep supporting targets it are unachievable or distructive
Speaker 2: to our economy and our way of life. I think
Speaker 2: we're going to destroy our country on that current trajectory,
Speaker 2: and that's why I'm so opposed to sticking with net
Speaker 2: zero and Labour's climate.
Speaker 6: I very much hope that my Libul colleagues support the
Speaker 6: position where we turn our back entirely on Labour's terrible
Speaker 6: net zero laws.
Speaker 3: And then you have Lee, who is supported by the
Speaker 3: moderates in the party room, trying to walk this line
Speaker 3: where she's saying, Okay, let's have a look.
Speaker 5: At the review and see what we can do.
Speaker 6: I said when I became leader, we would develop an
Speaker 6: energy policy that delivered a stable, reliable grid for affordable
Speaker 6: energy for households and businesses, and we'd play our part
Speaker 6: responsibly in reducing emissions. And those are still the two
Speaker 6: fundamentals in the energy policy that we are producing.
Speaker 3: The moderates really pushing to maintain some sort of link
Speaker 3: to net zero, and the right of the party saying
Speaker 3: if you do any of that, we're going to destroy you.
Speaker 5: So it's an absolute mess.
Speaker 2: So the key argument for those in the party don't
Speaker 2: support next zeros apparently around cost and they're saying that
Speaker 2: is driving our energy prices. So is there any evidence
Speaker 2: behind that claim and where is that assertion coming from.
Speaker 3: So it's a bit complicated that these things always are.
Speaker 3: I mean, our energy mix and what makes our prices
Speaker 3: is a mix of gas and coal and renewables, and
Speaker 3: renewables are by far the cheapest source of power in
Speaker 3: our network at the moment. It's one of the reasons
Speaker 3: why the government is saying, well, we can give you
Speaker 3: three hours free power because there's so much renewables in
Speaker 3: the system, it's so cheap they can afford to do that.
Speaker 5: Coal and gas are still very expensive.
Speaker 3: And every time that there's in, every single time that
Speaker 3: there's some sort of waves in the energy market, because
Speaker 3: our gas in particular is exposed to the international prices,
Speaker 3: our energy price goes up. So it's not because of renewables.
Speaker 3: It's because of the amount of gas and coal still
Speaker 3: in the system, and we haven't transitioned to a point
Speaker 3: where we don't need the coal.
Speaker 5: And gas just yet. That's the reason why power prices
Speaker 5: are so high.
Speaker 3: That doesn't really fit the narrative of what the Nationals
Speaker 3: and the right of the Liberal Party want people to know.
Speaker 3: They want people to think like, oh, it's the transition
Speaker 3: that's costing you all of this money, when we know
Speaker 3: just from looking at the evidence that that is not true.
Speaker 3: They're also pulling this number seven to nine trillion dollars,
Speaker 3: which sounds really scary, but it comes from a report
Speaker 3: that this big agency, McKinsey did where they were looking
Speaker 3: at the cost of transition, and that figure that seven
Speaker 3: to nine trillion dollars was about investment. The Liberals who
Speaker 3: want to get rid of net zero, and what the
Speaker 3: Nationals are not telling you is that this isn't a cost.
Speaker 5: It's investment.
Speaker 3: An investment, as the report laid out, also reaps rewards.
Speaker 3: It also has benefits, so you get money back from that.
Speaker 3: It also didn't take into account the cost of doing nothing,
Speaker 3: which is very very similar to the cost of investment.
Speaker 3: So they've cherry picked these figures from the report to say, oh,
Speaker 3: this is going to cost x amount when it's just
Speaker 3: not true.
Speaker 2: So is this a coordinated, internationally devised strategy to retain
Speaker 2: fossil fuels as part of the energy mix across the globe?
Speaker 2: Is this something that's been coordinated When.
Speaker 5: You look at the talking points, it absolutely is.
Speaker 3: All of these conversations happen globally and you see the
Speaker 3: same lines and the same flash points pop up all
Speaker 3: over the world. So at the moment we have UK
Speaker 3: politicians who are following Nigel Farage, who's their version of
Speaker 3: Pauline Hanson threatening to lie down in front of bulldozers
Speaker 3: to stop a solar farm from being built. It is
Speaker 3: all the same lines that are just being dolled out
Speaker 3: by these people. And we know that it's being funded
Speaker 3: by fossil fuel vested interests because we've seen evidence of
Speaker 3: that across the globe. This is not unique to Australia,
Speaker 3: and often you can see what's coming down the pipeline
Speaker 3: by watching what is making news in the United States
Speaker 3: and the UK, and you can be like, oh, okay,
Speaker 3: we're going to have big fights about wind farms very
Speaker 3: very soon.
Speaker 5: And sure enough we're having fights about wind.
Speaker 2: Farms or wind duils, is Donald Trump calls them. Coming
Speaker 2: up the climate Wars origin story.
Speaker 5: Amy.
Speaker 2: This fight inside the Liberal Party over nit zero and
Speaker 2: more broadly about hat to respond to climate change, of course,
Speaker 2: is not new. So how far back does it actually go.
Speaker 3: It actually goes back to Keating, so to a Labor
Speaker 3: government in the early nineteen nineties where they came up
Speaker 3: with the no regrets policy. And the no regrets policy
Speaker 3: was happening at the time when the world was trying
Speaker 3: to keep emissions to below nineteen eighty eight levels.
Speaker 5: So we've blown.
Speaker 3: Past that, but at the time that was the goal
Speaker 3: and coal Keating and the Labor government said okay, we'll
Speaker 3: take part in this, but only if it doesn't impact
Speaker 3: our agriculture and our coal mining industries, because these are
Speaker 3: the two biggest industries Australia has.
Speaker 5: The rest of the world.
Speaker 3: Went okay, fair enough, and they gave all sorts of little,
Speaker 3: you know, allowances that allow Australia to use things like
Speaker 3: different ways of using the land. So promising not to
Speaker 3: do land clearing, or promising to just keep different areas
Speaker 3: of vegetation going or planting trees could all count to
Speaker 3: Australia not having to cut emissions. Then John Howard is
Speaker 3: elected in nineteen ninety six and he's all like, this
Speaker 3: is brilliant, I can really do something with this, and
Speaker 3: he absolutely dis turbocharged that policy.
Speaker 5: Listeners may remember that the.
Speaker 3: Kyoto Treaty was not ratified by the Howard government. That
Speaker 3: pretty much was the world's really big first attempt to
Speaker 3: deal with emissions, and Howard was one of the only
Speaker 3: people to say no to that at the time. I
Speaker 3: mean Russia ratified it before Australia did. He really made
Speaker 3: it a climate culture war, and it was the first
Speaker 3: time that we really saw how politics could derail the
Speaker 3: science in such a comprehensive way. Not ratifying Kyoto taught
Speaker 3: an entire generation of Australian politicians in the Liberal Party
Speaker 3: how you can advance your own personal career by not
Speaker 3: actually doing anything on climate, How you can really start
Speaker 3: to build your own personal brand on that and we've
Speaker 3: been stuck.
Speaker 5: There for the last thirty years and here we are.
Speaker 2: So if Lee's party doesn't support net zero, does it
Speaker 2: make sense for her to walk away from the policy.
Speaker 3: It doesn't make any sense for her to walk away
Speaker 3: from the policy. But it's also not going to save her.
Speaker 3: There is nothing that can be done to save Susan
Speaker 3: Lee's leadership.
Speaker 5: She does not have authority in the party room.
Speaker 3: Because Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton at least had authority
Speaker 3: over the party room, so even though they didn't do anything,
Speaker 3: they could still say we are going to keep the
Speaker 3: idea of net zero, and the right of the party
Speaker 3: had to basically just sit there and take their lumps.
Speaker 3: Susan Lee does not have that power, and she's now
Speaker 3: in a position where if she keeps any reference to
Speaker 3: net zero, she's going to lose the support of the
Speaker 3: right and they will do everything that they can to
Speaker 3: bring her down. And if she gets rid of all
Speaker 3: references to net zero, she loses the support of the moderates.
Speaker 3: But then she's also very very reliant on polling, and
Speaker 3: we know that the polls continue to go down for
Speaker 3: the Liberal Party because of this sort of stuff. So
Speaker 3: the Liberals went backwards in the last two elections. One
Speaker 3: of the main reasons for that was their lack of
Speaker 3: climate policy. If they get rid of any reference to
Speaker 3: net zero by twenty fifty, or even just net zero,
Speaker 3: then they're going to completely collapse in the polls, which
Speaker 3: is when the Right will go Okay, well she's useless
Speaker 3: and we're going to get rid of her anyway. There
Speaker 3: is no saving her leadership. It may not be before Christmas,
Speaker 3: but it's not going to be much longer after that.
Speaker 2: And in the broader scheme of things, what does it
Speaker 2: mean if the Liberal Party does officially walk away from
Speaker 2: net zero? What does it do to our politics and
Speaker 2: to the market In.
Speaker 5: Terms of Australian policy.
Speaker 3: It doesn't actually do a lot because on the numbers
Speaker 3: it is almost impossible I say almost because nothing is,
Speaker 3: but almost impossible for the Liberal Party to win government
Speaker 3: at the next election.
Speaker 5: So we've got labor for at least six years.
Speaker 3: That means that our energy transition is well underway by
Speaker 3: the time that the coalition, if it still exists, is
Speaker 3: electorally competitive again. So it doesn't really do anything in
Speaker 3: terms of policy in the short term. It does impact
Speaker 3: on the market and whether or not they feel secure
Speaker 3: about investing in Australia, but it also just keeps the
Speaker 3: climate wars going. So we're not focusing on what the
Speaker 3: Labor government is or isn't doing, and they're pretty much
Speaker 3: just doing the bare minimum. We're not pushing labor to
Speaker 3: follow the science and stop coal and gas mining. We're
Speaker 3: having a conversation again about what the coalition is going
Speaker 3: to do on net zero and it's just it's so
Speaker 3: frustrating because we just seem stuck as a nation at
Speaker 3: this one spot because of this one party that is
Speaker 3: just keeping us held hostage in terms of this conversation
Speaker 3: at the same time point that we were thirty years
Speaker 3: ago when John Howard refused to ratify the Kyoto Convention.
Speaker 2: And how much longer do you think Susan Lee can
Speaker 2: hold on for? And what do you think this fight
Speaker 2: tells us about the future of the Liver Party itself.
Speaker 3: Look, I mean I think they're going to let Susan
Speaker 3: Lee hold on for as long as this mess is
Speaker 3: around because Angus Taylor and it's most likely going to
Speaker 3: be Angus Taylor at this stage.
Speaker 5: With Tim Wilson as a deputy.
Speaker 3: They don't want to own the mess, so they're going
Speaker 3: to make Susan Lee stick around for as long as
Speaker 3: they have this fight. Once the mess is sorted out,
Speaker 3: they'll probably keep her around for a little bit longer
Speaker 3: if she capitulates, and all signs are that she will capitulate,
Speaker 3: and then when the polls start tanking, that's when they'll
Speaker 3: come out and say, well, we have.
Speaker 5: To do this for the future of the party.
Speaker 3: The position the Coalition is in is that because the
Speaker 3: Nationals have capitulated and basically turned into one nation in
Speaker 3: the types of policies that they present in a bid
Speaker 3: to fend off one nation in their electorates, then liberals
Speaker 3: in inner city seats cannot fend off the Greens or
Speaker 3: Independence because the policy, the compromised policies that they've come
Speaker 3: up with, don't work in both areas. And it's an
Speaker 3: absolute mess.
Speaker 2: Amy, Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Seven Am is a daily show from Solstice Media. It's
Speaker 2: made by Anigas Basto, Chris Danegate, Daniel James Ruby Jones,
Speaker 2: Sarah mcveee, Travis Evans and Zulfet Joan. Our theme music
Speaker 2: is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hergan of Envelope Bordier.
Speaker 2: This has been seven am. Thanks for listening.