WEBVTT - Why the Coalition can't agree on climate

0:00:00.520 --> 0:00:03.720
<v Speaker 1>Already and this this is the Daily This is the

0:00:03.800 --> 0:00:06.840
<v Speaker 1>Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.

0:00:14.680 --> 0:00:17.600
<v Speaker 2>Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday,

0:00:17.640 --> 0:00:20.520
<v Speaker 2>the thirteenth of November. I'm Emma Gillespie.

0:00:20.600 --> 0:00:21.800
<v Speaker 1>I'm belief at Simon's.

0:00:22.160 --> 0:00:25.439
<v Speaker 2>The Coalition is in the middle of a major internal

0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:29.080
<v Speaker 2>showdown over its climate policy. This is after the Nationals,

0:00:29.080 --> 0:00:32.280
<v Speaker 2>of course, recently announced that they were dumping their support

0:00:32.400 --> 0:00:36.000
<v Speaker 2>for net zero. Yesterday, Liberal MPs gathered in Canberra to

0:00:36.000 --> 0:00:39.199
<v Speaker 2>discuss whether the party should maintain its commitment to net

0:00:39.320 --> 0:00:43.000
<v Speaker 2>zero emissions by twenty fifty and those talks will inform

0:00:43.080 --> 0:00:46.640
<v Speaker 2>the Shadow Cabinet's next decision as it meets today to

0:00:46.680 --> 0:00:49.839
<v Speaker 2>determine the party's position. But it's a joint meeting with

0:00:49.880 --> 0:00:53.280
<v Speaker 2>the Nationals on Sunday when we'll find out the Coalition's

0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:56.560
<v Speaker 2>final stance on net zero. And today we're going to

0:00:56.560 --> 0:00:59.120
<v Speaker 2>bring you up to speed on everything that's going on

0:00:59.440 --> 0:01:05.200
<v Speaker 2>and what it meant for Australia's future climate goals.

0:01:07.040 --> 0:01:09.880
<v Speaker 1>This story has been moving so quickly, so it's been

0:01:09.920 --> 0:01:12.640
<v Speaker 1>a bit hard to keep up with all the different updates,

0:01:13.080 --> 0:01:16.120
<v Speaker 1>but it all centers around net zero, so I think

0:01:16.160 --> 0:01:19.160
<v Speaker 1>that's a good place to start. What does net zero

0:01:19.360 --> 0:01:19.960
<v Speaker 1>actually mean?

0:01:20.160 --> 0:01:22.840
<v Speaker 2>Yet, I think a lot of people don't know what

0:01:22.920 --> 0:01:25.520
<v Speaker 2>net zero actually means, So this is an important piece

0:01:25.600 --> 0:01:29.319
<v Speaker 2>of the puzzle. Net zero means balancing the amount of

0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:33.039
<v Speaker 2>greenhouse gases that we put into the atmosphere with the

0:01:33.120 --> 0:01:37.000
<v Speaker 2>amount we remove. So by twenty fifty, the goal is

0:01:37.040 --> 0:01:41.720
<v Speaker 2>that any emissions Australia produces would be offset by removing

0:01:41.760 --> 0:01:45.080
<v Speaker 2>an equivalent amount from the atmosphere. Now, this is achieved

0:01:45.080 --> 0:01:51.160
<v Speaker 2>through things like renewable energy, carbon removal initiatives that includes reforestation.

0:01:51.360 --> 0:01:54.200
<v Speaker 2>There's a whole raft of measures that are part of that.

0:01:54.880 --> 0:01:58.000
<v Speaker 2>But it is important to note that net zero doesn't

0:01:58.040 --> 0:02:01.720
<v Speaker 2>mean zero emissions. It means the emissions that we can't

0:02:01.760 --> 0:02:05.720
<v Speaker 2>eliminate we balance through those removal activities.

0:02:06.040 --> 0:02:07.880
<v Speaker 1>I think I've said this on the podcast before, but

0:02:07.920 --> 0:02:10.280
<v Speaker 1>whenever I think of net zero, I think of a bathtub,

0:02:10.600 --> 0:02:13.240
<v Speaker 1>and that bathtub is full of water, and if you

0:02:13.360 --> 0:02:16.640
<v Speaker 1>add more water, you have to take that amount out

0:02:16.680 --> 0:02:19.079
<v Speaker 1>of the bathtub as well, exactly, And that's how I

0:02:19.080 --> 0:02:21.800
<v Speaker 1>think of That is a great Archimedee's bath analogy.

0:02:22.400 --> 0:02:24.760
<v Speaker 2>Net zero, you may or may not know, is a

0:02:24.800 --> 0:02:28.360
<v Speaker 2>commitment that the government made in twenty twenty one under

0:02:28.480 --> 0:02:32.720
<v Speaker 2>Scott Morrison's leadership, so that was a coalition government, but

0:02:33.040 --> 0:02:36.160
<v Speaker 2>it's an initiative that has had the support of both

0:02:36.360 --> 0:02:39.480
<v Speaker 2>major parties. It's a target that the Coalition and Labor

0:02:39.520 --> 0:02:43.440
<v Speaker 2>have committed to until very recently.

0:02:43.240 --> 0:02:45.640
<v Speaker 1>Until very recently, and that's why we're talking about it

0:02:45.639 --> 0:02:50.480
<v Speaker 1>today exactly. And we're focusing on the coalition's policy. And

0:02:50.520 --> 0:02:53.320
<v Speaker 1>so both the Liberal Party and the National Party, who

0:02:53.320 --> 0:02:56.400
<v Speaker 1>make up the coalition, we're both in agreement that net

0:02:56.520 --> 0:02:59.000
<v Speaker 1>zero by twenty fifty was a good thing and that

0:02:59.080 --> 0:03:01.919
<v Speaker 1>was a policy that they adopted and took two elections.

0:03:02.520 --> 0:03:06.120
<v Speaker 1>But now it appears that that's changed. Yeah, how has

0:03:06.120 --> 0:03:06.720
<v Speaker 1>it changed?

0:03:07.040 --> 0:03:10.480
<v Speaker 2>Well, to put it simply, Billy, the Nationals has changed.

0:03:10.919 --> 0:03:14.680
<v Speaker 2>The Nationals has shifted its position, and that in turn

0:03:15.000 --> 0:03:18.880
<v Speaker 2>has changed everything. So earlier this month the Nationals party

0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:23.040
<v Speaker 2>room voted formally to abandon net zero by twenty fifty.

0:03:23.440 --> 0:03:28.239
<v Speaker 2>Now that was after months of uncertainty, division and signposting

0:03:28.400 --> 0:03:32.079
<v Speaker 2>from Nationals leaders that the target was going to be

0:03:32.160 --> 0:03:35.320
<v Speaker 2>dropped by the party. But this created immediate problems for

0:03:35.360 --> 0:03:38.120
<v Speaker 2>the Liberals because, as you mentioned, the Coalition is a

0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:42.440
<v Speaker 2>formal alliance between those two parties. They campaigned together, they

0:03:42.520 --> 0:03:45.960
<v Speaker 2>work together in opposition at the moment, or when they're

0:03:45.960 --> 0:03:50.119
<v Speaker 2>in government together. They are technically separate parties with their

0:03:50.160 --> 0:03:53.640
<v Speaker 2>own policies, but they need to come to the table

0:03:53.720 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 2>and agree on these kinds of issues. And when the

0:03:56.720 --> 0:03:59.320
<v Speaker 2>Nationals walked away from net zero, it left the Libs

0:03:59.360 --> 0:04:02.040
<v Speaker 2>in this really different position of either sticking with the

0:04:02.040 --> 0:04:06.960
<v Speaker 2>commitment and going without the support of their coalition partner,

0:04:07.680 --> 0:04:10.680
<v Speaker 2>or following the Nationals and dumping net zero two.

0:04:10.920 --> 0:04:13.960
<v Speaker 1>And so why did the Nationals walk away from net zero?

0:04:14.520 --> 0:04:17.520
<v Speaker 2>A big one for the Nationals here is the cost

0:04:17.520 --> 0:04:21.120
<v Speaker 2>of energy. So the Nats claim that household energy prices

0:04:21.360 --> 0:04:24.960
<v Speaker 2>have shot up under net zero policies, and so we

0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:27.600
<v Speaker 2>need to walk away from this commitment to drive down

0:04:27.720 --> 0:04:30.880
<v Speaker 2>household power prices. Now, energy experts flag that there are

0:04:31.200 --> 0:04:35.240
<v Speaker 2>a raft of reasons for energy prices increasing and net

0:04:35.360 --> 0:04:38.800
<v Speaker 2>zero is not solely to blame. David little Proud, who

0:04:38.800 --> 0:04:41.479
<v Speaker 2>is the leader of the Nationals, also believes that the

0:04:41.520 --> 0:04:44.680
<v Speaker 2>current net zero target is too ambitious. He thinks that

0:04:44.760 --> 0:04:47.760
<v Speaker 2>Australia is punching above its weight on a global scale,

0:04:48.040 --> 0:04:50.680
<v Speaker 2>that we're doing more than our fair share of emissions

0:04:50.680 --> 0:04:53.400
<v Speaker 2>reductions and that when you consider the amount that we

0:04:53.560 --> 0:04:57.600
<v Speaker 2>emit on a global scale, that there is an unfair imbalance.

0:04:58.080 --> 0:05:02.159
<v Speaker 2>Little Proud also said he wants to protect industries like mining, agriculture,

0:05:02.240 --> 0:05:06.080
<v Speaker 2>manufacturing in the regions which he argues are being quote

0:05:06.240 --> 0:05:08.960
<v Speaker 2>torn apart by the government's energy policies.

0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:12.320
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so that is the National Party where they stand.

0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:15.520
<v Speaker 1>They are united in walking away from net zero. And

0:05:15.560 --> 0:05:18.400
<v Speaker 1>then we have the Liberal Party who yesterday had the

0:05:18.440 --> 0:05:21.200
<v Speaker 1>meeting to decide what their position on net zero is.

0:05:21.480 --> 0:05:23.520
<v Speaker 1>We don't know the outcome of that meeting, but we

0:05:23.560 --> 0:05:26.680
<v Speaker 1>know they had it and from what I can see,

0:05:26.720 --> 0:05:30.080
<v Speaker 1>there is a lot of internal fighting within the Liberal

0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:32.080
<v Speaker 1>Party about their stance on this.

0:05:32.400 --> 0:05:35.160
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, is that right? It is far from clearcut. The

0:05:35.200 --> 0:05:39.840
<v Speaker 2>Liberal Party does not have the solid, uniform kind of

0:05:39.880 --> 0:05:42.599
<v Speaker 2>commitment that the Nationals has landed on two walk away,

0:05:42.960 --> 0:05:46.760
<v Speaker 2>and this has caused massive tension. The Liberal Party has

0:05:46.880 --> 0:05:50.400
<v Speaker 2>essentially been split into two camps on this issue within

0:05:50.480 --> 0:05:53.720
<v Speaker 2>its own party, let alone the two camps of the coalition.

0:05:54.120 --> 0:05:56.159
<v Speaker 2>So on one side of the Liberal Party right now,

0:05:56.200 --> 0:05:59.320
<v Speaker 2>you have the moderate faction. These are the nps that

0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:03.080
<v Speaker 2>typically represent urban or inner city seats where voters do

0:06:03.160 --> 0:06:06.200
<v Speaker 2>tend to care more about climate action and climate policy.

0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:09.760
<v Speaker 2>Now by and large, the moderate Liberals want to keep

0:06:09.800 --> 0:06:12.240
<v Speaker 2>the net zero commitment. They believe that it is a

0:06:12.240 --> 0:06:16.480
<v Speaker 2>good policy and that dumping it importantly could cost them

0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:20.480
<v Speaker 2>votes and could cost them more seats after an historic

0:06:20.560 --> 0:06:23.640
<v Speaker 2>loss at the recent federal election. On the other side,

0:06:23.680 --> 0:06:27.120
<v Speaker 2>you have the conservative or right faction of the Liberal Party,

0:06:27.360 --> 0:06:30.880
<v Speaker 2>and these MPs argue that net zero policies are driving

0:06:30.920 --> 0:06:34.640
<v Speaker 2>up energy prices. They want to prioritize lowering power bills

0:06:34.720 --> 0:06:37.200
<v Speaker 2>over these climate commitments, and they would be more aligned

0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:40.560
<v Speaker 2>with whether nationals have fallen on the issue. The Albanesi government.

0:06:40.560 --> 0:06:43.720
<v Speaker 2>In the meantime, the Labor Party is committed to net

0:06:43.839 --> 0:06:46.919
<v Speaker 2>zero by twenty fifty and it has said repeatedly that

0:06:46.960 --> 0:06:49.440
<v Speaker 2>abandoning the target would be reckless.

0:06:49.839 --> 0:06:52.160
<v Speaker 1>So they've been quite critical of the fact that the

0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:55.120
<v Speaker 1>Liberal Party is still discussing whether or not to have

0:06:55.240 --> 0:06:58.760
<v Speaker 1>net zero exactly, and so just staying on the Liberal Party.

0:06:59.120 --> 0:07:02.000
<v Speaker 1>Who are some of the he figures on either side

0:07:02.120 --> 0:07:04.360
<v Speaker 1>of the factions in the Liberal Party.

0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:07.400
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, one of the most prominent moderates that we've heard

0:07:07.520 --> 0:07:11.200
<v Speaker 2>from is Andrew Bragg. A Liberal senator. He has actually

0:07:11.200 --> 0:07:14.240
<v Speaker 2>said that he would consider quitting the Shadow cabinet if

0:07:14.280 --> 0:07:17.280
<v Speaker 2>the party decides to pull out of the Paris Agreement.

0:07:17.680 --> 0:07:21.280
<v Speaker 2>Now that is the international Climate treaty, and the net

0:07:21.360 --> 0:07:26.040
<v Speaker 2>zero target is part of Australia's legal obligations under the treaty,

0:07:26.160 --> 0:07:28.120
<v Speaker 2>which is why you might hear net zero and Paris

0:07:28.160 --> 0:07:31.720
<v Speaker 2>kind of discussed interchangeably. But Andrew Bragg has been really

0:07:31.760 --> 0:07:35.200
<v Speaker 2>clear that he supports lowering omissions. He doesn't think Australia

0:07:35.200 --> 0:07:38.360
<v Speaker 2>should walk away from its international commitments. There are other

0:07:38.480 --> 0:07:43.440
<v Speaker 2>senior Liberal officials who have previously said firmly and confidently

0:07:43.520 --> 0:07:46.520
<v Speaker 2>that they support net zero, but in the recent weeks,

0:07:46.640 --> 0:07:49.920
<v Speaker 2>since these divisions have intensified, they have either walked back

0:07:49.960 --> 0:07:52.920
<v Speaker 2>those comments or have you know, quietened down on them

0:07:52.920 --> 0:07:55.200
<v Speaker 2>and said, let's leave it up to these meetings this

0:07:55.280 --> 0:07:58.800
<v Speaker 2>week to find out what will happen on the Conservative side.

0:07:58.880 --> 0:08:01.920
<v Speaker 2>So the Liberal policians who want to walk away from

0:08:01.920 --> 0:08:05.679
<v Speaker 2>net zero, you have Shadow Cabinet ministers like Angus Taylor

0:08:05.760 --> 0:08:08.800
<v Speaker 2>and Michaylia Cash. They have spoken in favor of dumping

0:08:08.840 --> 0:08:11.880
<v Speaker 2>net zero at a recent leadership meeting. According to a

0:08:11.960 --> 0:08:15.720
<v Speaker 2>report by the Australian. And then in between all of

0:08:15.760 --> 0:08:19.200
<v Speaker 2>that we have the Opposition leader, Susan Lee, who is

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:21.440
<v Speaker 2>frankly Billy caught in the middle of all of this,

0:08:21.840 --> 0:08:24.760
<v Speaker 2>trying to hold the party and the coalition together.

0:08:25.120 --> 0:08:27.880
<v Speaker 1>She's trying to unite a party that does not want

0:08:27.880 --> 0:08:31.520
<v Speaker 1>to be united, seemingly. So we had this meeting yesterday

0:08:31.680 --> 0:08:35.079
<v Speaker 1>of the Liberal Party MPs. I know we mentioned before

0:08:35.120 --> 0:08:38.160
<v Speaker 1>that we don't really know what happened yet, but what

0:08:38.280 --> 0:08:38.760
<v Speaker 1>do we know?

0:08:39.320 --> 0:08:42.800
<v Speaker 2>So we do know that yesterday at midday the Liberal

0:08:42.800 --> 0:08:46.120
<v Speaker 2>Party room met in Canberra. It's actually not a sitting week,

0:08:46.240 --> 0:08:49.800
<v Speaker 2>so politicians had flown home to their electorates and they

0:08:49.840 --> 0:08:54.720
<v Speaker 2>were recalled to Canberra specifically for these talks. Essentially, what

0:08:54.840 --> 0:08:59.000
<v Speaker 2>happened yesterday was a chance for all Liberal MPs and

0:08:59.040 --> 0:09:02.520
<v Speaker 2>senators to share their views on whether they think net

0:09:02.640 --> 0:09:05.679
<v Speaker 2>zero is worth sticking to or whether the party should

0:09:05.679 --> 0:09:08.040
<v Speaker 2>walk away. So it was a chance for everyone to

0:09:08.160 --> 0:09:11.800
<v Speaker 2>express their opinions hear each other out. That included some

0:09:11.960 --> 0:09:16.120
<v Speaker 2>research that the party conducted on voters' views on climate action,

0:09:16.559 --> 0:09:19.800
<v Speaker 2>so that was presented. The Shadow Energy Minister Dan Teen

0:09:19.960 --> 0:09:23.240
<v Speaker 2>also presented some findings from a policy review that he

0:09:23.320 --> 0:09:26.440
<v Speaker 2>has been leading, but no decisions were made. Like I said,

0:09:26.440 --> 0:09:29.040
<v Speaker 2>this was just an opportunity for everyone to have their

0:09:29.120 --> 0:09:33.360
<v Speaker 2>say before the leadership makes a call, and that is

0:09:33.360 --> 0:09:34.600
<v Speaker 2>happening later today.

0:09:35.320 --> 0:09:38.400
<v Speaker 1>So there is another meeting today where the leadership team

0:09:38.480 --> 0:09:41.760
<v Speaker 1>of the Liberal Party will actually decide what the policy is.

0:09:41.880 --> 0:09:43.760
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, there is a lot of scheduling here to get

0:09:43.800 --> 0:09:46.199
<v Speaker 2>your head around. So once you figure out what net

0:09:46.280 --> 0:09:48.760
<v Speaker 2>zero is and why half of the coalition wants to

0:09:48.760 --> 0:09:50.320
<v Speaker 2>walk away from it, then you have to figure out

0:09:50.360 --> 0:09:52.320
<v Speaker 2>the process of how they're going to come to the table.

0:09:52.679 --> 0:09:55.840
<v Speaker 2>So the Liberal Shadow Cabinet will meet today, that's the

0:09:55.960 --> 0:09:59.200
<v Speaker 2>senior leadership team of the party, and they will try

0:09:59.240 --> 0:10:03.040
<v Speaker 2>to land on a policy position based on everything they've

0:10:03.040 --> 0:10:06.160
<v Speaker 2>heard at the previous day's meeting. So they'll try to

0:10:06.200 --> 0:10:10.679
<v Speaker 2>bring together the learnings and the opinions that were presented yesterday.

0:10:10.800 --> 0:10:14.280
<v Speaker 1>I quite like that system here everyone's perspectives and then

0:10:14.400 --> 0:10:16.160
<v Speaker 1>go away and make a decision. Yeah.

0:10:16.240 --> 0:10:19.960
<v Speaker 2>I suppose it's a nice idea in theory if it works,

0:10:20.120 --> 0:10:23.640
<v Speaker 2>But there are ultimately three big questions for shadow cabinet

0:10:23.679 --> 0:10:27.360
<v Speaker 2>to answer. First, they need to figure out do they

0:10:27.360 --> 0:10:30.920
<v Speaker 2>stay committed to twenty fifty. Is net zero twenty fifty

0:10:30.960 --> 0:10:33.319
<v Speaker 2>a target for them or are they dumping it? Second,

0:10:33.760 --> 0:10:37.200
<v Speaker 2>what happens to Australia's commitment to the Paris Agreement? So

0:10:37.240 --> 0:10:42.120
<v Speaker 2>we have international, legally binding obligations. How will the coalition

0:10:42.240 --> 0:10:45.600
<v Speaker 2>move forward with the international climate treaty that Australia signed?

0:10:46.120 --> 0:10:49.800
<v Speaker 2>And Third, how are they going to lower power prices?

0:10:49.880 --> 0:10:52.800
<v Speaker 2>So if they abandoned net zero or not, what will

0:10:52.840 --> 0:10:55.920
<v Speaker 2>the strategy be there? Because the Liberal Party has tabled

0:10:55.920 --> 0:10:57.199
<v Speaker 2>that that is a key priority.

0:10:57.400 --> 0:11:00.560
<v Speaker 1>And just in case anyone is confused when we say

0:11:00.840 --> 0:11:03.360
<v Speaker 1>they are deciding whether or not to abandon net zero,

0:11:03.720 --> 0:11:06.439
<v Speaker 1>this is if they got into government at the next

0:11:06.480 --> 0:11:09.880
<v Speaker 1>election in Australia, which isn't until twenty twenty eight, they

0:11:09.960 --> 0:11:14.599
<v Speaker 1>are deciding what their policies to take to that election are. So,

0:11:14.840 --> 0:11:16.800
<v Speaker 1>because they're not in government at the moment, it's not

0:11:17.160 --> 0:11:19.439
<v Speaker 1>immediately a tangible decision.

0:11:19.520 --> 0:11:24.360
<v Speaker 2>There won't be an immediate impact on how Australia's climate

0:11:24.400 --> 0:11:28.120
<v Speaker 2>targets are being reached, but a lot could change in

0:11:28.160 --> 0:11:28.640
<v Speaker 2>the future.

0:11:28.760 --> 0:11:33.440
<v Speaker 1>Yes, definitely. Okay, so that is the meeting that is today,

0:11:33.960 --> 0:11:37.120
<v Speaker 1>But then you said that there is another meeting. We

0:11:37.200 --> 0:11:40.480
<v Speaker 1>love all the meetings. There is another meeting on Sunday,

0:11:40.640 --> 0:11:42.800
<v Speaker 1>and that is with the Nationals.

0:11:43.040 --> 0:11:45.800
<v Speaker 2>Yes, so Sunday is the big one if you have

0:11:45.880 --> 0:11:48.520
<v Speaker 2>to think about it in that way. Today is when

0:11:48.559 --> 0:11:52.040
<v Speaker 2>the Liberal Party will decide what its approach to net

0:11:52.120 --> 0:11:55.600
<v Speaker 2>zero will be. The Nationals has already decided its approach,

0:11:55.679 --> 0:12:00.480
<v Speaker 2>which is abandoned. On Sunday, those two parties will come

0:12:00.520 --> 0:12:04.160
<v Speaker 2>together as the coalition. They will hold a joint meeting

0:12:04.400 --> 0:12:08.240
<v Speaker 2>where as a whole they will determine their final position

0:12:08.720 --> 0:12:11.760
<v Speaker 2>on net zero. This meeting could be very short. It

0:12:11.800 --> 0:12:14.680
<v Speaker 2>could be quick and easy if the Liberals decide today

0:12:14.840 --> 0:12:17.160
<v Speaker 2>the Shadow Cabinet decides that they're going to walk away

0:12:17.160 --> 0:12:19.920
<v Speaker 2>from net zero. But if there is a point of

0:12:20.000 --> 0:12:23.560
<v Speaker 2>tension that contradicts what the Nationals have decided, then it

0:12:23.600 --> 0:12:27.120
<v Speaker 2>could be a long day. The challenge is that whatever

0:12:27.160 --> 0:12:30.640
<v Speaker 2>the Liberals decide, they then need to negotiate with the Nationals,

0:12:30.679 --> 0:12:33.520
<v Speaker 2>and we already know where the Nats stand. So even

0:12:33.600 --> 0:12:36.200
<v Speaker 2>if the Liberals decide that they want to keep net zero,

0:12:36.600 --> 0:12:39.040
<v Speaker 2>they'll have to figure out how that works with their

0:12:39.120 --> 0:12:43.080
<v Speaker 2>coalition partners. And this is where Susan Lee's leadership will

0:12:43.200 --> 0:12:46.760
<v Speaker 2>really be tested. Even further she needs to find that

0:12:46.840 --> 0:12:51.040
<v Speaker 2>position that doesn't split the coalition, but also that doesn't

0:12:51.080 --> 0:12:55.040
<v Speaker 2>alienate too many of her colleagues and ultimately too many

0:12:55.360 --> 0:12:56.800
<v Speaker 2>future potential voters.

0:12:57.080 --> 0:12:59.520
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, you just brought up splitting the coalition. I was

0:12:59.559 --> 0:13:03.000
<v Speaker 1>going to say, we have already seen this year that

0:13:03.160 --> 0:13:06.720
<v Speaker 1>net zero is an issue that the Coalition is willing

0:13:06.760 --> 0:13:10.240
<v Speaker 1>to partly split over. They then came back together, but

0:13:10.800 --> 0:13:14.920
<v Speaker 1>it is within possibility that they could split again over

0:13:15.200 --> 0:13:16.839
<v Speaker 1>net zero. Experts saying that.

0:13:16.920 --> 0:13:20.079
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, there is a genuine concern about whether the Coalition

0:13:20.320 --> 0:13:23.040
<v Speaker 2>can come out the other side of this issue. They

0:13:23.080 --> 0:13:26.240
<v Speaker 2>obviously did experience that brief split earlier this year that

0:13:26.280 --> 0:13:28.840
<v Speaker 2>you mentioned Billy. Net zero is believed to have been

0:13:28.840 --> 0:13:32.560
<v Speaker 2>a factor in that breakup. So if the Liberals don't

0:13:32.679 --> 0:13:35.360
<v Speaker 2>want to dump net zero or don't want to shift

0:13:35.440 --> 0:13:39.640
<v Speaker 2>on the target, you could see that conversation rearing up again.

0:13:40.080 --> 0:13:42.920
<v Speaker 2>There's also a world where, you know, if Liberals dump

0:13:42.960 --> 0:13:45.440
<v Speaker 2>net zero in line with what the Nationals are calling for,

0:13:46.000 --> 0:13:50.320
<v Speaker 2>moderate MPs may become increasingly vocal, potentially moved to the

0:13:50.440 --> 0:13:54.400
<v Speaker 2>cross bench. That would be a big hit to the Liberals,

0:13:54.679 --> 0:13:59.800
<v Speaker 2>very diminished presence in parliament. Environment Minister Murray Watt. Of course,

0:14:00.080 --> 0:14:04.280
<v Speaker 2>Labor Minister has called this internal debate another example of

0:14:04.679 --> 0:14:08.560
<v Speaker 2>the tail wagging the dog. So his implication there is

0:14:08.600 --> 0:14:10.800
<v Speaker 2>the National Party, despite the fact that it has a

0:14:10.840 --> 0:14:15.240
<v Speaker 2>smaller representation in Parliament, that it's dictating the terms of

0:14:15.280 --> 0:14:19.280
<v Speaker 2>the Liberal Party's agenda. Many commentators are also pointing out

0:14:19.320 --> 0:14:21.920
<v Speaker 2>that Susan Lee is in a lose lose position as

0:14:21.960 --> 0:14:26.480
<v Speaker 2>opposition leader. She has inherited these problems. She is leading

0:14:26.520 --> 0:14:30.000
<v Speaker 2>a coalition that is divided after a historic election loss.

0:14:30.480 --> 0:14:33.840
<v Speaker 2>And what next for her is anyone's guess.

0:14:34.000 --> 0:14:36.280
<v Speaker 1>I think that's a whole other podcast and it's super

0:14:36.320 --> 0:14:40.080
<v Speaker 1>interesting what is happening with Susan Lee's leadership. She obviously

0:14:40.080 --> 0:14:42.680
<v Speaker 1>says that she still has the support of the party,

0:14:42.720 --> 0:14:45.480
<v Speaker 1>but there have been some MPs who have not supported

0:14:45.480 --> 0:14:48.200
<v Speaker 1>her very publicly. Yeah, but yeah, I think that's a

0:14:48.240 --> 0:14:51.880
<v Speaker 1>whole other podcast potentially. But just to finish on this,

0:14:52.000 --> 0:14:55.800
<v Speaker 1>I know he briefly touched on it before, but what

0:14:55.920 --> 0:14:59.800
<v Speaker 1>does this mean for Australia's climate policies because they're not

0:14:59.840 --> 0:15:03.600
<v Speaker 1>in government, Yes, but it would still impact I guess

0:15:03.680 --> 0:15:05.040
<v Speaker 1>the landscape.

0:15:04.760 --> 0:15:08.800
<v Speaker 2>Exactly and immediately the impact would be uncertainty so this

0:15:08.880 --> 0:15:13.160
<v Speaker 2>would fundamentally change the climate policy landscape in Australia. And

0:15:13.240 --> 0:15:18.160
<v Speaker 2>while the Coalition is not in government, this creates policy uncertainty,

0:15:18.320 --> 0:15:23.800
<v Speaker 2>especially in the world of business investors overseas, investors potentially

0:15:23.840 --> 0:15:27.160
<v Speaker 2>looking to spend money long term on you know, local

0:15:27.200 --> 0:15:32.480
<v Speaker 2>renewable projects, clean energy infrastructure. If there is a signal

0:15:32.520 --> 0:15:36.240
<v Speaker 2>of a dramatic shift in Australia's political future when it

0:15:36.280 --> 0:15:39.440
<v Speaker 2>comes to climate targets, that could impact a lot of

0:15:39.440 --> 0:15:41.640
<v Speaker 2>that investment. That could see a lot of that money

0:15:41.800 --> 0:15:44.760
<v Speaker 2>dry up depending on who wins the next election in

0:15:44.840 --> 0:15:49.200
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty eight. There's also the question of Australia's international standing.

0:15:49.800 --> 0:15:52.600
<v Speaker 2>What happens to the Paris Agreement. We are a signatory

0:15:52.760 --> 0:15:55.840
<v Speaker 2>to that treaty. Walking away from net zero would put

0:15:55.920 --> 0:15:59.360
<v Speaker 2>us at odds with most developed nations. There is so

0:15:59.480 --> 0:16:03.080
<v Speaker 2>much up in But I guess any suggestion that this

0:16:03.120 --> 0:16:06.760
<v Speaker 2>wouldn't matter because the Coalition is not in government is

0:16:07.280 --> 0:16:09.880
<v Speaker 2>possibly a little naive. We have to really wait for

0:16:09.920 --> 0:16:13.400
<v Speaker 2>Sunday to hear where the coalition will land. That's when

0:16:13.440 --> 0:16:16.640
<v Speaker 2>we'll find out their official position, and there'll be plenty

0:16:16.680 --> 0:16:17.560
<v Speaker 2>to say from there.

0:16:18.080 --> 0:16:20.480
<v Speaker 1>Well, we will keep a close eye on today's meeting,

0:16:20.760 --> 0:16:23.480
<v Speaker 1>and then on Sunday's meeting, and on the decision that

0:16:23.560 --> 0:16:26.280
<v Speaker 1>comes out of that. Emma, thank you for explaining that.

0:16:26.520 --> 0:16:28.960
<v Speaker 1>Thank you Philly, and thank you so much for listening

0:16:29.040 --> 0:16:31.440
<v Speaker 1>to this episode of The Daily Ods. We'll be back

0:16:31.440 --> 0:16:34.040
<v Speaker 1>in your ease this afternoon with your evening headlines, but

0:16:34.120 --> 0:16:36.520
<v Speaker 1>until then, have a great day and keep an eye

0:16:36.560 --> 0:16:43.040
<v Speaker 1>on those meetings. My name is Lily Maddon and I'm

0:16:43.040 --> 0:16:47.520
<v Speaker 1>a proud Aarunda Bungelung Calcuttin woman from Gadigol Country. The

0:16:47.600 --> 0:16:50.680
<v Speaker 1>Daily os acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the

0:16:50.760 --> 0:16:53.440
<v Speaker 1>lands of the Gatigol people and pays respect to all

0:16:53.600 --> 0:16:56.640
<v Speaker 1>Aboriginal and Torres Strait island and nations. We pay our

0:16:56.680 --> 0:16:59.760
<v Speaker 1>respects to the first peoples of these countries, both past

0:16:59.840 --> 0:17:00.440
<v Speaker 1>and present.