Speaker 1: Already and this this is the Daily Off.
Speaker 2: This is the Daily OS. Oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Wednesday,
Speaker 2: the nineteenth of November.
Speaker 3: I'm Billy fitz Simon's I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 2: The Coalition has announced it will abandon Australia's target of
Speaker 2: net zero by twenty fifty to instead focus on affordable energy.
Speaker 2: On Sunday, they promised they would bring down energy bills
Speaker 2: for Australians by removing the renewable energy targets enshrined in
Speaker 2: law by Labor. It is the biggest policy announcement from
Speaker 2: the Coalition since their loss at the last election in May. Today,
Speaker 2: I sit down with Susan Lee, who is the leader
Speaker 2: of the Liberal Party, about the reasoning behind that decision.
Speaker 3: Billy, firstly, I'm really excited for people to listen to
Speaker 3: this chat. I think it was a really interesting interview.
Speaker 3: But I do think that there's a lot of concepts
Speaker 3: that come up during the chat that we need to
Speaker 3: get our head around so that we can understand exactly
Speaker 3: what you guys are talking about. Why don't we start
Speaker 3: with net zero as a key concept?
Speaker 2: So net zero refers to balancing the amount of greenhouse
Speaker 2: gases we produce with the amount that we then take
Speaker 2: out of the atmosphere. And what you need to know
Speaker 2: is that Australia currently has a plan to reach net
Speaker 2: zero by twenty.
Speaker 3: Fifty and so over the weekend the coalition announced it
Speaker 3: will abandon that target. Will let the opposition leader explain
Speaker 3: their thinking behind that and how they got to that decision.
Speaker 3: But to be very clear, that wouldn't happen unless they're
Speaker 3: elected to government, right.
Speaker 2: No, So just be clear. We're talking about the coalition.
Speaker 2: They are made up of the Liberal Party and the Nationals.
Speaker 2: Susan Lee, who I am interviewing today is the leader
Speaker 2: of the Liberal Party. She took over from Peter Dutton
Speaker 2: after their loss at the last election, and so they
Speaker 2: are currently in opposition. So all of their policy and nenouncements,
Speaker 2: the one that we heard on the weekend and the
Speaker 2: ones that they i'm sure will continue to announce, is
Speaker 2: them saying this is what we would do if we
Speaker 2: are elected at the next federal election, which isn't due
Speaker 2: until twenty twenty eight, so we have a while.
Speaker 3: So we've got about two and a half years until then. Yes,
Speaker 3: but if they won and Susan Lee were still in
Speaker 3: power as the leader of the Opposition, she would then
Speaker 3: be the Prime Minister exactly. One last thing to note
Speaker 3: is the Paris Agreement. It comes up a bit in
Speaker 3: the interview quickly talking through what that is.
Speaker 2: So the Paris Agreement is an international treaty on climate change.
Speaker 2: It was signed by countries around the world in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 2: and under that agreement, countries agreed to limit global warming
Speaker 2: to one point five degrees above pre industrial levels. Now
Speaker 2: to do that, there are specific targets that need to
Speaker 2: be met, but we get into all of that in
Speaker 2: the interview.
Speaker 3: A really helpful outline. Why don't we get straight into
Speaker 3: that chat with Billy and the Opposition leader here.
Speaker 2: It is Susan Ly thank you for joining the Daily Oz.
Speaker 2: It's a pleasure talking today because on Sunday the Coalition
Speaker 2: announced that it would abandon Australia's net zero by twenty
Speaker 2: fifty target. For anyone who missed that announcement, do you
Speaker 2: want to just take us through it first?
Speaker 1: Thank you, Billy, And I said when you and I
Speaker 1: caught up last time, soon after I became leader, that
Speaker 1: I wanted to meet with young Australians wherever they are
Speaker 1: and listen to them. And I have, and I've made
Speaker 1: a decision, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain it.
Speaker 1: Our plan that I'm talking about today is about affordable
Speaker 1: energy and responsible emissions reduction, and I know that a
Speaker 1: lot of young people are really struggling with the cost
Speaker 1: of living right now, and that's one of the reasons
Speaker 1: we've made affordability of energy central to the plan. But
Speaker 1: emission's reduction is still important. And when you talk about
Speaker 1: net zero you mean a long term target that the
Speaker 1: government has signed up to. Unfortunately, they're not going to
Speaker 1: meet that target, and the costs that they've incurred so
Speaker 1: far haven't really bought emissions down either.
Speaker 2: So you're saying that you have gone away, you've listened
Speaker 2: to young people, and as a result of that, you
Speaker 2: have decided to abandon net zero.
Speaker 1: Not quite in the terms that you've just presented. What
Speaker 1: I've done is listen to young people and they've told
Speaker 1: me they care about the climate, and I care about
Speaker 1: the climate.
Speaker 2: But with this decision, abandoning net zero bad for the climate.
Speaker 1: It's a target that unfortunately the government is not going
Speaker 1: to reach and already if you look at where they've
Speaker 1: come from and where they're going, their emissions from Australia
Speaker 1: are flatlining. But most importantly, energy prices are going up.
Speaker 1: And remember they told you that renewables were the cheapest
Speaker 1: form of power and your energy bills would come down,
Speaker 1: and they've gone up forty percent. So because energy is unaffordable,
Speaker 1: everything is unaffordable. So we have to get the cost
Speaker 1: of energy affordable. But we do need to play our
Speaker 1: part in reducing emissions, which is why I've said that
Speaker 1: a coalition government would stay signed up to the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you're saying we need to abandon climate targets
Speaker 2: to bring down the cost of energy bills. But experts
Speaker 2: have said that there are a mix of reasons for
Speaker 2: higher energy bills. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an example
Speaker 2: of one of those reasons. So what is the evidence
Speaker 2: that higher energy prices are caused by renewable energy.
Speaker 1: The government told you that your energy bills would go
Speaker 1: down because of renewable energy, and your energy bills have
Speaker 1: gone up by forty percent. This is all after the
Speaker 1: Ukraine War. Any effects from that have washed out.
Speaker 2: And while that war is still ongoing. So we are
Speaker 2: still seeing the effects of that.
Speaker 1: Yes, but the effects that Australia is seeing are from
Speaker 1: the renewable energy build and the government's energy policy. So
Speaker 1: the government has said we're building eighty two percent of
Speaker 1: the grid to be renewable by twenty thirty. They're woefully
Speaker 1: off track with that. That actually is not going to happen,
Speaker 1: and the government privately, I think would admit this too.
Speaker 1: They're failing to do what they said they would do,
Speaker 1: which is to keep prices down.
Speaker 2: I want to move on just quickly. I've heard you
Speaker 2: say before that you do believe in the science behind
Speaker 2: climate change.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: You were standing next to National's leader David littl Proud
Speaker 2: on Sunday as he explicitly said that this decision is
Speaker 2: not based on science. Is that right.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that's what he said. He said that
Speaker 1: the economics is what we need to focus on.
Speaker 2: Say, this debate is not about science.
Speaker 1: Mister bib is not one predicated on science, It is
Speaker 1: one predicated on economics. He's certainly not walking away from
Speaker 1: the science of climate change. There may have been a
Speaker 1: misunderstanding there because I've heard him on other occasions and
Speaker 1: we're very clear that we accept the science of climate change,
Speaker 1: which is why we're staying with the Paris Agreement, because
Speaker 1: that's what the Paris Agreement is about.
Speaker 2: Let's look at the Paris Agreement. You say that you
Speaker 2: will remain committed to it, but to reach the goals
Speaker 2: set out in that agreement, countries need to achieve net
Speaker 2: zero by twenty fifty. So if you're serious about ditching
Speaker 2: net zero, why not leave the Paris Agreement as well.
Speaker 1: I'm going to disagree with you about the net zero
Speaker 1: by twenty fifty being in the Paris Agreement. What the
Speaker 1: Paris Agreement says is that countries must submit their nationally
Speaker 1: determined contributions and they can resubmit them or as some
Speaker 1: have changed the baseline accounting to make them look a
Speaker 1: bit different.
Speaker 2: It's more specific than that, though, because so it has
Speaker 2: the target of limiting global warming to one point five degrees,
Speaker 2: and in order to scientifically achieve that, net zero is required.
Speaker 1: So believe it is the only way to achieve that target.
Speaker 1: How much can Australia achieve if we're only one percent
Speaker 1: of those global emissions?
Speaker 2: But are you saying if we can't one hundred percent
Speaker 2: get there, then we shouldn't even try.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that we should responsibly play our part in
Speaker 1: the ways that I've said, which is bringing down our
Speaker 1: own emissions, because that's what we should do.
Speaker 3: Lok.
Speaker 1: I know the lots of disagreement about what it means,
Speaker 1: but let's take a step back. Does anyone in Australia
Speaker 1: really think that we would let an international agreement determine
Speaker 1: a policy that will crash Australia's businesses, that would make
Speaker 1: our young people inherit a lower standard of living, that
Speaker 1: would even then not make an appreciable difference to the
Speaker 1: world's climate. Now, I appreciate that Labours put this target
Speaker 1: on the table and they've talked a big game, but
Speaker 1: when you look at where they are now and where
Speaker 1: they are expecting to land, it's almost impossible.
Speaker 2: Let's get back to the specifics of the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 2: It is specific in saying that countries targets can't go backwards.
Speaker 2: Under this policy that you've proposed, Australia's targets would go backwards.
Speaker 2: So is the coalition strategy to remain part of the
Speaker 2: Paris Agreement but then actively breach it.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll sit at the table in the forum that
Speaker 1: is the Paris Agreement, and we'll talk about what our
Speaker 1: nationally determined contributions will be in our national interest when
Speaker 1: that time comes. And when you say that, so, what
Speaker 1: other countries are doing right now, because because many of
Speaker 1: them have realized it's not possible to reach targets that
Speaker 1: they set, is they're changing their baseline accounting, so they're
Speaker 1: watering it down, or they're taking certain things out and
Speaker 1: saying we're still there, but we're not counting this, this,
Speaker 1: and this. So plenty of countries are changing what they're
Speaker 1: prepared to do in.
Speaker 2: W they're not going backwards on the targets.
Speaker 1: They are because well, countries that are saying our nationally
Speaker 1: determined contributions are now going to be calculated in a
Speaker 1: different way.
Speaker 2: But who's going backwards on that time?
Speaker 1: Well, several countries are doing things differently because of this.
Speaker 1: And i'll get your list.
Speaker 2: Gone backwards, well, look forward to them.
Speaker 1: It depends, It depends what you mean by going backwards.
Speaker 1: The Labor Party has given a target, so they've given
Speaker 1: forty three percent by twenty thirty and they've said between
Speaker 1: and twenty thirty five it'll be sixty two to seventy percent.
Speaker 1: There is no way that that can be reached. So
Speaker 1: they're going to have to go backwards if they're still
Speaker 1: in power, because there's no way they can reach that.
Speaker 1: There's no way that number will work at all. But
Speaker 1: it's not just about a target and an international agreement.
Speaker 1: Important though international agreements are. It's about what's in the
Speaker 1: best interest for our country.
Speaker 3: We're going to get back to that chat between Billy
Speaker 3: and the opposition leader Susan Lee in the SEC. But
Speaker 3: here's a quick message from our sponsor.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we've established what you're not doing, Let's look
Speaker 2: at what you would do. Can you say, in really
Speaker 2: clear terms, how would a future coalition government bring energy
Speaker 2: prices down.
Speaker 1: By getting more supply into the system. I talked about
Speaker 1: a balanced energy grid. At the moment, the grid is
Speaker 1: out of balance. There are too many renewables at it.
Speaker 1: Renewables are good, but by the time you firm them
Speaker 1: with dispatchable, reliable base load power, and by the time
Speaker 1: you build the transmission systems, by the time you put
Speaker 1: all that in there, it's incredibly expensive. And the delays
Speaker 1: in that equipment coming to Australia is a year to
Speaker 1: three years behind, so that's pushing up prices. So what
Speaker 1: we're saying is, yes, renewables in the right place, but
Speaker 1: let's bring gas into the system.
Speaker 2: But you're confident that you could increased supply of gas
Speaker 2: and at the same time bring down emissions.
Speaker 1: Well, we've got probably the second or third largest resource
Speaker 1: of gas in the world. We're the second or third
Speaker 1: biggest exporter of LNG. Renewables cannot operate without base load
Speaker 1: power to what we call firm the grid. So in
Speaker 1: Spain and Portugal a few well not that long ago,
Speaker 1: they tried to run the whole Iberian Peninsula off renewables.
Speaker 2: They said that they were.
Speaker 1: Going to be able to do it. So if you
Speaker 1: like an experiment, it didn't work. One part of the
Speaker 1: grid got out of frequency and there was a cascading
Speaker 1: series of shutdowns. The whole peninsula went dark. Eleven people
Speaker 1: lost their lives, and it was.
Speaker 2: The Spanish government said that wasn't because of renewables.
Speaker 1: It was it was because renewables were unable. The generation
Speaker 1: of electricity was too renewable to keep the grid stable.
Speaker 2: But the official report on that there is no evidence
Speaker 2: that that was because of renewal.
Speaker 1: The honest answer to this is that's what happened. But
Speaker 1: back to the LG, well maybe not, back to the
Speaker 1: fact that you can't. You do need to have baseload
Speaker 1: and dispatchable power and that helps renewables and it's a
Speaker 1: good thing. Now, the only way you can get zero
Speaker 1: emissions is to have nuclear.
Speaker 2: The Coalition still supports nuclear energy as part of this policy.
Speaker 1: We are completely technology agnostic and that includes nuclear. And
Speaker 1: when I talk to a lot of young people, and
Speaker 1: I know there's quite a movement of young people in
Speaker 1: Europe to be very pro nuclear because it's zero emissions,
Speaker 1: and it's baseload power, and it's reliable and what it.
Speaker 2: Takes it at least fifteen years to build.
Speaker 1: Well, look, you know there's different technologies being built all
Speaker 1: the time and being explored, and I know some of
Speaker 1: those are micro nuclear reactors which are very small, and
Speaker 1: I know that overseas in the US they're considering how
Speaker 1: they might be applied to data centers and AI. Now
Speaker 1: the technology is not their.
Speaker 2: Explaining of policy on technology that you don't know will exist.
Speaker 1: Well, we have to be technology agnostics. So whatever's there,
Speaker 1: whatever it can provide, should be part of our plan.
Speaker 1: That's the critical thing. Now we're agnostic about what the
Speaker 1: technology is, but it needs to fit in with our
Speaker 1: affordable electricity scheme and it needs to do the job,
Speaker 1: because ultimately we can't have power that people can't pay for.
Speaker 1: But I would encourage you to do some more research
Speaker 1: on some research. No, no, I'm not suggesting you have
Speaker 1: it on zero emissions nuclear people don't think about it.
Speaker 2: I've also done some research on that because.
Speaker 1: A lot of young people are talking to me about
Speaker 1: about nuclear and yeah, I mean people my generation obviously
Speaker 1: have the memory of military grade nuclear and some of
Speaker 1: them that's not a good memory, and I understand that.
Speaker 1: But your generation is, well, this is interesting. It has
Speaker 1: no emissions and if we we want to look after
Speaker 1: the planet, and we do, we should definitely consider it.
Speaker 2: Just lastly, I want to turn to the space around
Speaker 2: your leadership. Your colleague Sarah Henderson recently said I can't
Speaker 2: pretend things are good. I do think Susan is losing support.
Speaker 2: What's your response to that.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to comment on the commentary of colleagues
Speaker 1: or others who tend to then comment on that commentary,
Speaker 1: except to say that we as a team signed off
Speaker 1: on this affordable plan. And you know what, well, I
Speaker 1: get these questions and obviously understand why people have to
Speaker 1: ask them. I am not going to lose focus for
Speaker 1: a single second on what is really important to me,
Speaker 1: which is how we develop and deliver an affordable and
Speaker 1: reliable energy system for Australians.
Speaker 2: I understand that you're focused on it, and I believe
Speaker 2: that you're focused on that policy. But the thing is
Speaker 2: that your colleagues don't seem to be focused on it,
Speaker 2: because every single day in the media there is speculation
Speaker 2: that your colleagues don't want you to be the leader anymore.
Speaker 2: So how do you respond to that.
Speaker 1: I just don't comment on commentary, and you know, there's
Speaker 1: all sorts of things in the media about who said
Speaker 1: what to whom. I pay no attention to it, because
Speaker 1: I genuinely am focused on this. And you know one
Speaker 1: of the reasons I am because I remember how as
Speaker 1: a young mum I had three children I was parting
Speaker 1: them into the car. One of the things that really
Speaker 1: worried me was my energy bills because they were pretty steep.
Speaker 1: For you if you're managing on a small budget and
Speaker 1: when you don't know how you're going to meet your
Speaker 1: expenses week to week is something that sure it was
Speaker 1: many years ago for me, but I've never forgotten you're
Speaker 1: facing Young people are facing increased cost of living, which
Speaker 1: is why your report pass pivot. It's not quite as
Speaker 1: fifty nine percent.
Speaker 2: Look at that graph, great graph, that question speculation.
Speaker 1: I just want to read it that when young Australians
Speaker 1: say I love it, they trust themselves over the system.
Speaker 1: I don't love that. That worries me. This is what
Speaker 1: they mean. They're earning more than their parents did at
Speaker 1: the same time, yet they're feeling less secure, working harder,
Speaker 1: falling further behind on the milestones that defined Australian's success.
Speaker 1: Fifty nine percent, this cost of living is their single
Speaker 1: biggest concern, more than all the other issues combined.
Speaker 2: I don't dispute that can't be. Young people are concerned
Speaker 2: about host of living.
Speaker 1: And to be a responsible leader in this country, we've
Speaker 1: got to address that.
Speaker 2: Have you spoken to your colleagues like Andrew Hasty who
Speaker 2: potentially want your job.
Speaker 1: That's your observation, and as it said, I don't think
Speaker 1: being quite clear about it, but I talked to all
Speaker 1: of my colleagues we were all involved in developing the plan,
Speaker 1: we were all involved in having our say and now
Speaker 1: we really want to talk to Australians about how they're
Speaker 1: being let down by this government.
Speaker 2: You're confident you'll be the leader of the Opposition at
Speaker 2: the next selection. Yes, I am seasonally. Thank you so
Speaker 2: much for don't thank you.
Speaker 3: That's all we've got for today's podcast. Thank you so
Speaker 3: much for listening. Thank you to the Opposition leader for
Speaker 3: coming into TDA, and for Billy for doing that interview
Speaker 3: for us. We'll be back this afternoon with your evening headlines,
Speaker 3: but until then, have a great day.
Speaker 1: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 1: Bungelung Kalkudin woman from Gadighl Country.
Speaker 2: The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on
Speaker 2: the lands of the Gadighl people and pays respect to
Speaker 2: all Aboriginal and torrest Rate island and nations. We pay
Speaker 2: our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both
Speaker 2: past and present.