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