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