Speaker 1: Already and this this is the Daily This is the
Speaker 1: Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday,
Speaker 2: the thirteenth of November. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 1: I'm belief at Simon's.
Speaker 2: The Coalition is in the middle of a major internal
Speaker 2: showdown over its climate policy. This is after the Nationals,
Speaker 2: of course, recently announced that they were dumping their support
Speaker 2: for net zero. Yesterday, Liberal MPs gathered in Canberra to
Speaker 2: discuss whether the party should maintain its commitment to net
Speaker 2: zero emissions by twenty fifty and those talks will inform
Speaker 2: the Shadow Cabinet's next decision as it meets today to
Speaker 2: determine the party's position. But it's a joint meeting with
Speaker 2: the Nationals on Sunday when we'll find out the Coalition's
Speaker 2: final stance on net zero. And today we're going to
Speaker 2: bring you up to speed on everything that's going on
Speaker 2: and what it meant for Australia's future climate goals.
Speaker 1: This story has been moving so quickly, so it's been
Speaker 1: a bit hard to keep up with all the different updates,
Speaker 1: but it all centers around net zero, so I think
Speaker 1: that's a good place to start. What does net zero
Speaker 1: actually mean?
Speaker 2: Yet, I think a lot of people don't know what
Speaker 2: net zero actually means, So this is an important piece
Speaker 2: of the puzzle. Net zero means balancing the amount of
Speaker 2: greenhouse gases that we put into the atmosphere with the
Speaker 2: amount we remove. So by twenty fifty, the goal is
Speaker 2: that any emissions Australia produces would be offset by removing
Speaker 2: an equivalent amount from the atmosphere. Now, this is achieved
Speaker 2: through things like renewable energy, carbon removal initiatives that includes reforestation.
Speaker 2: There's a whole raft of measures that are part of that.
Speaker 2: But it is important to note that net zero doesn't
Speaker 2: mean zero emissions. It means the emissions that we can't
Speaker 2: eliminate we balance through those removal activities.
Speaker 1: I think I've said this on the podcast before, but
Speaker 1: whenever I think of net zero, I think of a bathtub,
Speaker 1: and that bathtub is full of water, and if you
Speaker 1: add more water, you have to take that amount out
Speaker 1: of the bathtub as well, exactly, And that's how I
Speaker 1: think of That is a great Archimedee's bath analogy.
Speaker 2: Net zero, you may or may not know, is a
Speaker 2: commitment that the government made in twenty twenty one under
Speaker 2: Scott Morrison's leadership, so that was a coalition government, but
Speaker 2: it's an initiative that has had the support of both
Speaker 2: major parties. It's a target that the Coalition and Labor
Speaker 2: have committed to until very recently.
Speaker 1: Until very recently, and that's why we're talking about it
Speaker 1: today exactly. And we're focusing on the coalition's policy. And
Speaker 1: so both the Liberal Party and the National Party, who
Speaker 1: make up the coalition, we're both in agreement that net
Speaker 1: zero by twenty fifty was a good thing and that
Speaker 1: was a policy that they adopted and took two elections.
Speaker 1: But now it appears that that's changed. Yeah, how has
Speaker 1: it changed?
Speaker 2: Well, to put it simply, Billy, the Nationals has changed.
Speaker 2: The Nationals has shifted its position, and that in turn
Speaker 2: has changed everything. So earlier this month the Nationals party
Speaker 2: room voted formally to abandon net zero by twenty fifty.
Speaker 2: Now that was after months of uncertainty, division and signposting
Speaker 2: from Nationals leaders that the target was going to be
Speaker 2: dropped by the party. But this created immediate problems for
Speaker 2: the Liberals because, as you mentioned, the Coalition is a
Speaker 2: formal alliance between those two parties. They campaigned together, they
Speaker 2: work together in opposition at the moment, or when they're
Speaker 2: in government together. They are technically separate parties with their
Speaker 2: own policies, but they need to come to the table
Speaker 2: and agree on these kinds of issues. And when the
Speaker 2: Nationals walked away from net zero, it left the Libs
Speaker 2: in this really different position of either sticking with the
Speaker 2: commitment and going without the support of their coalition partner,
Speaker 2: or following the Nationals and dumping net zero two.
Speaker 1: And so why did the Nationals walk away from net zero?
Speaker 2: A big one for the Nationals here is the cost
Speaker 2: of energy. So the Nats claim that household energy prices
Speaker 2: have shot up under net zero policies, and so we
Speaker 2: need to walk away from this commitment to drive down
Speaker 2: household power prices. Now, energy experts flag that there are
Speaker 2: a raft of reasons for energy prices increasing and net
Speaker 2: zero is not solely to blame. David little Proud, who
Speaker 2: is the leader of the Nationals, also believes that the
Speaker 2: current net zero target is too ambitious. He thinks that
Speaker 2: Australia is punching above its weight on a global scale,
Speaker 2: that we're doing more than our fair share of emissions
Speaker 2: reductions and that when you consider the amount that we
Speaker 2: emit on a global scale, that there is an unfair imbalance.
Speaker 2: Little Proud also said he wants to protect industries like mining, agriculture,
Speaker 2: manufacturing in the regions which he argues are being quote
Speaker 2: torn apart by the government's energy policies.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that is the National Party where they stand.
Speaker 1: They are united in walking away from net zero. And
Speaker 1: then we have the Liberal Party who yesterday had the
Speaker 1: meeting to decide what their position on net zero is.
Speaker 1: We don't know the outcome of that meeting, but we
Speaker 1: know they had it and from what I can see,
Speaker 1: there is a lot of internal fighting within the Liberal
Speaker 1: Party about their stance on this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, is that right? It is far from clearcut. The
Speaker 2: Liberal Party does not have the solid, uniform kind of
Speaker 2: commitment that the Nationals has landed on two walk away,
Speaker 2: and this has caused massive tension. The Liberal Party has
Speaker 2: essentially been split into two camps on this issue within
Speaker 2: its own party, let alone the two camps of the coalition.
Speaker 2: So on one side of the Liberal Party right now,
Speaker 2: you have the moderate faction. These are the nps that
Speaker 2: typically represent urban or inner city seats where voters do
Speaker 2: tend to care more about climate action and climate policy.
Speaker 2: Now by and large, the moderate Liberals want to keep
Speaker 2: the net zero commitment. They believe that it is a
Speaker 2: good policy and that dumping it importantly could cost them
Speaker 2: votes and could cost them more seats after an historic
Speaker 2: loss at the recent federal election. On the other side,
Speaker 2: you have the conservative or right faction of the Liberal Party,
Speaker 2: and these MPs argue that net zero policies are driving
Speaker 2: up energy prices. They want to prioritize lowering power bills
Speaker 2: over these climate commitments, and they would be more aligned
Speaker 2: with whether nationals have fallen on the issue. The Albanesi government.
Speaker 2: In the meantime, the Labor Party is committed to net
Speaker 2: zero by twenty fifty and it has said repeatedly that
Speaker 2: abandoning the target would be reckless.
Speaker 1: So they've been quite critical of the fact that the
Speaker 1: Liberal Party is still discussing whether or not to have
Speaker 1: net zero exactly, and so just staying on the Liberal Party.
Speaker 1: Who are some of the he figures on either side
Speaker 1: of the factions in the Liberal Party.
Speaker 2: Yeah, one of the most prominent moderates that we've heard
Speaker 2: from is Andrew Bragg. A Liberal senator. He has actually
Speaker 2: said that he would consider quitting the Shadow cabinet if
Speaker 2: the party decides to pull out of the Paris Agreement.
Speaker 2: Now that is the international Climate treaty, and the net
Speaker 2: zero target is part of Australia's legal obligations under the treaty,
Speaker 2: which is why you might hear net zero and Paris
Speaker 2: kind of discussed interchangeably. But Andrew Bragg has been really
Speaker 2: clear that he supports lowering omissions. He doesn't think Australia
Speaker 2: should walk away from its international commitments. There are other
Speaker 2: senior Liberal officials who have previously said firmly and confidently
Speaker 2: that they support net zero, but in the recent weeks,
Speaker 2: since these divisions have intensified, they have either walked back
Speaker 2: those comments or have you know, quietened down on them
Speaker 2: and said, let's leave it up to these meetings this
Speaker 2: week to find out what will happen on the Conservative side.
Speaker 2: So the Liberal policians who want to walk away from
Speaker 2: net zero, you have Shadow Cabinet ministers like Angus Taylor
Speaker 2: and Michaylia Cash. They have spoken in favor of dumping
Speaker 2: net zero at a recent leadership meeting. According to a
Speaker 2: report by the Australian. And then in between all of
Speaker 2: that we have the Opposition leader, Susan Lee, who is
Speaker 2: frankly Billy caught in the middle of all of this,
Speaker 2: trying to hold the party and the coalition together.
Speaker 1: She's trying to unite a party that does not want
Speaker 1: to be united, seemingly. So we had this meeting yesterday
Speaker 1: of the Liberal Party MPs. I know we mentioned before
Speaker 1: that we don't really know what happened yet, but what
Speaker 1: do we know?
Speaker 2: So we do know that yesterday at midday the Liberal
Speaker 2: Party room met in Canberra. It's actually not a sitting week,
Speaker 2: so politicians had flown home to their electorates and they
Speaker 2: were recalled to Canberra specifically for these talks. Essentially, what
Speaker 2: happened yesterday was a chance for all Liberal MPs and
Speaker 2: senators to share their views on whether they think net
Speaker 2: zero is worth sticking to or whether the party should
Speaker 2: walk away. So it was a chance for everyone to
Speaker 2: express their opinions hear each other out. That included some
Speaker 2: research that the party conducted on voters' views on climate action,
Speaker 2: so that was presented. The Shadow Energy Minister Dan Teen
Speaker 2: also presented some findings from a policy review that he
Speaker 2: has been leading, but no decisions were made. Like I said,
Speaker 2: this was just an opportunity for everyone to have their
Speaker 2: say before the leadership makes a call, and that is
Speaker 2: happening later today.
Speaker 1: So there is another meeting today where the leadership team
Speaker 1: of the Liberal Party will actually decide what the policy is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there is a lot of scheduling here to get
Speaker 2: your head around. So once you figure out what net
Speaker 2: zero is and why half of the coalition wants to
Speaker 2: walk away from it, then you have to figure out
Speaker 2: the process of how they're going to come to the table.
Speaker 2: So the Liberal Shadow Cabinet will meet today, that's the
Speaker 2: senior leadership team of the party, and they will try
Speaker 2: to land on a policy position based on everything they've
Speaker 2: heard at the previous day's meeting. So they'll try to
Speaker 2: bring together the learnings and the opinions that were presented yesterday.
Speaker 1: I quite like that system here everyone's perspectives and then
Speaker 1: go away and make a decision. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I suppose it's a nice idea in theory if it works,
Speaker 2: But there are ultimately three big questions for shadow cabinet
Speaker 2: to answer. First, they need to figure out do they
Speaker 2: stay committed to twenty fifty. Is net zero twenty fifty
Speaker 2: a target for them or are they dumping it? Second,
Speaker 2: what happens to Australia's commitment to the Paris Agreement? So
Speaker 2: we have international, legally binding obligations. How will the coalition
Speaker 2: move forward with the international climate treaty that Australia signed?
Speaker 2: And Third, how are they going to lower power prices?
Speaker 2: So if they abandoned net zero or not, what will
Speaker 2: the strategy be there? Because the Liberal Party has tabled
Speaker 2: that that is a key priority.
Speaker 1: And just in case anyone is confused when we say
Speaker 1: they are deciding whether or not to abandon net zero,
Speaker 1: this is if they got into government at the next
Speaker 1: election in Australia, which isn't until twenty twenty eight, they
Speaker 1: are deciding what their policies to take to that election are. So,
Speaker 1: because they're not in government at the moment, it's not
Speaker 1: immediately a tangible decision.
Speaker 2: There won't be an immediate impact on how Australia's climate
Speaker 2: targets are being reached, but a lot could change in
Speaker 2: the future.
Speaker 1: Yes, definitely. Okay, so that is the meeting that is today,
Speaker 1: But then you said that there is another meeting. We
Speaker 1: love all the meetings. There is another meeting on Sunday,
Speaker 1: and that is with the Nationals.
Speaker 2: Yes, so Sunday is the big one if you have
Speaker 2: to think about it in that way. Today is when
Speaker 2: the Liberal Party will decide what its approach to net
Speaker 2: zero will be. The Nationals has already decided its approach,
Speaker 2: which is abandoned. On Sunday, those two parties will come
Speaker 2: together as the coalition. They will hold a joint meeting
Speaker 2: where as a whole they will determine their final position
Speaker 2: on net zero. This meeting could be very short. It
Speaker 2: could be quick and easy if the Liberals decide today
Speaker 2: the Shadow Cabinet decides that they're going to walk away
Speaker 2: from net zero. But if there is a point of
Speaker 2: tension that contradicts what the Nationals have decided, then it
Speaker 2: could be a long day. The challenge is that whatever
Speaker 2: the Liberals decide, they then need to negotiate with the Nationals,
Speaker 2: and we already know where the Nats stand. So even
Speaker 2: if the Liberals decide that they want to keep net zero,
Speaker 2: they'll have to figure out how that works with their
Speaker 2: coalition partners. And this is where Susan Lee's leadership will
Speaker 2: really be tested. Even further she needs to find that
Speaker 2: position that doesn't split the coalition, but also that doesn't
Speaker 2: alienate too many of her colleagues and ultimately too many
Speaker 2: future potential voters.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you just brought up splitting the coalition. I was
Speaker 1: going to say, we have already seen this year that
Speaker 1: net zero is an issue that the Coalition is willing
Speaker 1: to partly split over. They then came back together, but
Speaker 1: it is within possibility that they could split again over
Speaker 1: net zero. Experts saying that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there is a genuine concern about whether the Coalition
Speaker 2: can come out the other side of this issue. They
Speaker 2: obviously did experience that brief split earlier this year that
Speaker 2: you mentioned Billy. Net zero is believed to have been
Speaker 2: a factor in that breakup. So if the Liberals don't
Speaker 2: want to dump net zero or don't want to shift
Speaker 2: on the target, you could see that conversation rearing up again.
Speaker 2: There's also a world where, you know, if Liberals dump
Speaker 2: net zero in line with what the Nationals are calling for,
Speaker 2: moderate MPs may become increasingly vocal, potentially moved to the
Speaker 2: cross bench. That would be a big hit to the Liberals,
Speaker 2: very diminished presence in parliament. Environment Minister Murray Watt. Of course,
Speaker 2: Labor Minister has called this internal debate another example of
Speaker 2: the tail wagging the dog. So his implication there is
Speaker 2: the National Party, despite the fact that it has a
Speaker 2: smaller representation in Parliament, that it's dictating the terms of
Speaker 2: the Liberal Party's agenda. Many commentators are also pointing out
Speaker 2: that Susan Lee is in a lose lose position as
Speaker 2: opposition leader. She has inherited these problems. She is leading
Speaker 2: a coalition that is divided after a historic election loss.
Speaker 2: And what next for her is anyone's guess.
Speaker 1: I think that's a whole other podcast and it's super
Speaker 1: interesting what is happening with Susan Lee's leadership. She obviously
Speaker 1: says that she still has the support of the party,
Speaker 1: but there have been some MPs who have not supported
Speaker 1: her very publicly. Yeah, but yeah, I think that's a
Speaker 1: whole other podcast potentially. But just to finish on this,
Speaker 1: I know he briefly touched on it before, but what
Speaker 1: does this mean for Australia's climate policies because they're not
Speaker 1: in government, Yes, but it would still impact I guess
Speaker 1: the landscape.
Speaker 2: Exactly and immediately the impact would be uncertainty so this
Speaker 2: would fundamentally change the climate policy landscape in Australia. And
Speaker 2: while the Coalition is not in government, this creates policy uncertainty,
Speaker 2: especially in the world of business investors overseas, investors potentially
Speaker 2: looking to spend money long term on you know, local
Speaker 2: renewable projects, clean energy infrastructure. If there is a signal
Speaker 2: of a dramatic shift in Australia's political future when it
Speaker 2: comes to climate targets, that could impact a lot of
Speaker 2: that investment. That could see a lot of that money
Speaker 2: dry up depending on who wins the next election in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty eight. There's also the question of Australia's international standing.
Speaker 2: What happens to the Paris Agreement. We are a signatory
Speaker 2: to that treaty. Walking away from net zero would put
Speaker 2: us at odds with most developed nations. There is so
Speaker 2: much up in But I guess any suggestion that this
Speaker 2: wouldn't matter because the Coalition is not in government is
Speaker 2: possibly a little naive. We have to really wait for
Speaker 2: Sunday to hear where the coalition will land. That's when
Speaker 2: we'll find out their official position, and there'll be plenty
Speaker 2: to say from there.
Speaker 1: Well, we will keep a close eye on today's meeting,
Speaker 1: and then on Sunday's meeting, and on the decision that
Speaker 1: comes out of that. Emma, thank you for explaining that.
Speaker 1: Thank you Philly, and thank you so much for listening
Speaker 1: to this episode of The Daily Ods. We'll be back
Speaker 1: in your ease this afternoon with your evening headlines, but
Speaker 1: until then, have a great day and keep an eye
Speaker 1: on those meetings. My name is Lily Maddon and I'm
Speaker 1: a proud Aarunda Bungelung Calcuttin woman from Gadigol Country. The
Speaker 1: Daily os acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the
Speaker 1: lands of the Gatigol people and pays respect to all
Speaker 1: Aboriginal and Torres Strait island and nations. We pay our
Speaker 1: respects to the first peoples of these countries, both past
Speaker 1: and present.