September 18, 2025 • 21 mins
The government announced its 2035 emissions reduction target this week, committing Australia to climate action despite a retreat from the United States. Meanwhile, the Coalition looked a lot like it was about to take up arms in the climate wars - again.
Chief political commentator James Massola joins host Jacqueline Maley.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:02):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley, it's Friday, September 19th.
This week, the government announced its 2035 emissions reduction target,
committing Australia to climate action despite a retreat from the
US and some other countries. Meanwhile, the coalition looked a
(00:22):
lot like it was about to take up arms in
the climate wars. Again, our federal political correspondent, Paul Circle
has come down with tonsillitis this week, so we're giving
him a much needed rest. And we warmly welcome chief
political commentator James Massola. Hi, James.
S2 (00:37):
Hi, jacks. Good to be with you.
S1 (00:43):
James. On Thursday, the government announced its emissions reduction target
for 2035. So this is an interim target to get
us to net zero by 2050. And it was 62
to 70% in reductions.
S3 (00:54):
This is a responsible target backed by the science backed
by a practical plan to get there and built on
proven technology.
S1 (01:04):
So what does it mean?
S2 (01:05):
Look, I mean, this is something that's been much delayed,
the 2035 targets. When we signed up to the Paris
climate deal, part of what we signed up to was
to set targets each five years. That's what this is
basically the thinking being, Jack, that you can't go from
standard or current 2020 emissions levels or 20 tens emission
levels straight down to zero. You have to do it
(01:27):
as a sort of an orderly trajectory, if you like.
And so, you know, that's what we're seeing here today.
We've had a 43% by 2030. We now see 62%
to 70% reduction by 2035. What does it mean? It
means us signing up to do more things, more, take
more steps in different sectors of the Australian economy to
(01:48):
reduce emissions so that we don't sort of have to
go off a cliff in 2049, if you like, and
suddenly de-industrialize.
S1 (01:55):
Yeah, like a journalist with a deadline who starts writing
at sort of five minutes to midnight. Well, you and
I have never done that. No. So obviously, the climate
and energy minister, Chris Bowen, and the Prime Minister and
the treasurer and the head of the Climate Change Authority
all gave this press conference on Thursday, and they announced
$7 billion in funds to put into a sort of
pool to help business and industry achieve the target. Jim
(02:18):
Chalmers said it was a golden economic opportunity. They said
it would be an orderly transition, very much in contrast
to what they said the coalition had done, which was
a disorderly, kind of chaotic transition that was no good
for anyone. I want to talk about the coalition because
even before the target was announced on Thursday, we saw
members of the coalition get right out in front of
(02:39):
it and start laying out their opposition not to the
interim target, but to the overall target of net zero
by 2050, which is what we've signed up to under
the Paris Agreement. Andrew Hastie, the shadow home affairs minister
and prominent WA conservative, was the first sort of cab
out of the rank. What did he have to say, James?
S2 (02:57):
What? Andrew Hastie said, basically, Jack was if the coalition
remained committed to net zero by 2050, his position on
the frontbench would be untenable and he would have to resign.
S4 (03:09):
If Susan Lee, though, supports net zero by 2050. Where
does that leave you?
S5 (03:17):
That leaves me without a job.
S2 (03:20):
Because he just couldn't ever bring himself to support that target.
S5 (03:23):
Um, you know, I've nailed my colours to the mast.
I went on four corners and I said, the net
zero policy is a straitjacket for our economy and our country.
And I believe that I'm actually quite passionate about it.
S2 (03:34):
In one sense, that's a statement of fact. We already
know as well that that's what Andrew Hastie thinks, in
the sense that he's been very vocal in his opposition
to the 2050 target for net zero target for some time.
S1 (03:46):
He said it would be an economic straitjacket for the nation,
which is exactly the opposite of what Chalmers said.
S2 (03:52):
Yeah. Look. Exactly. Chalmers modelling talked about billions or I
think even close to trillions in extra GDP generated through
to 2050. If we pursue the so-called orderly transition model,
which is what Labor's doing.
S6 (04:05):
The baseline scenario would see our economy $2.2 trillion bigger
by 2050, an extra $36,000 per person wealthier with 5.1
million more jobs and investment up 80%. Now that's the
baseline scenario.
S2 (04:23):
Which Hastie thinks it's a disaster, he says we should
be putting consumers first. He wants Australia to be an
energy superpower, he says. You know, we've gone from having
some of the cheapest electricity in the world to some
of the most expensive. He wants to reframe the debate around,
I guess, cost to household retail to manufacturing cost to business.
It's very retail. Yeah, exactly.
S1 (04:42):
Yeah, yeah. And I want to get on to that
strategy later, because I think it's really interesting. And it
could be really effective for the coalition. But just so
Andrew Hastie comes out at the beginning of the week
and then he's backed up by Senator Jonathon Duniam of Tasmania,
who said that there would be a mass exodus from
the coalition if the coalition signed up to net zero
at any cost.
S7 (05:01):
Well, look, if we just said net zero at any
cost by 2050, I think you'd find there'd be a
mass exodus. The reality is.
S1 (05:09):
And then towards the end of the week, I just
started hearing this phrase a lot more at any cost.
We're not going to go for net zero at any cost.
Is this their new line, James? Because Sussan Ley also
trotted it out when she gave a talk this week
I think on Wednesday.
S2 (05:22):
Yeah. Look I think that's right. Other MPs indeed have
come out and supported Hastie and Duniam as well and
said we need to junk this policy. Now, of course,
the context here, Jack, is that the coalition plan is
to have a year long review led by Dan Tehan
of climate policy, so they can all get together, hold
hands and agree on some. Well, you know, whatever the
(05:43):
policy might be. Yeah, there's a whole bunch of people
in the coalition who think the price of entry back
into metropolitan seats of which they hold almost none. Now
is to have a credible climate policy to stay committed
to 2050 and net zero emissions. And then there's a
whole bunch of people who think, no way this is
economic suicide. We cannot do this. I don't see how
that year long review, how it doesn't get crunched down
(06:06):
into a couple more weeks. And when we return to
Parliament in October, the coalition will have, I believe, I
understand they'll have to have some kind of a policy
to talk about, because at the moment they're trying to
reframe the debate as you as you've just touched on
the at any cost thing. And I think that's Susan
Lee recognising that the parameters, if you like, in which
(06:26):
within which she has to work, but they need they've
got they've got nothing to show.
S1 (06:30):
Yeah. It's a question now of how long they can
repeat that line for. We are not going to go
for net zero at any cost. Well what is the cost.
Are you going to go for net zero at all.
Like they're going to be facing these questions again and
again and again, particularly when Parliament returns, as you say.
But it doesn't look like Hastie has done this coincidentally,
or just because, you know, he happened to be asked.
On the fly. It looks quite strategic. And his colleague
(06:53):
or his sort of factional colleague, Senator Duniam, has come
out very much in concert with him. And we've seen obviously,
the Nats come out in concert as well on this
issue and say that basically they're never going to support
net zero. So Sussan Ley is kind of in an
impossible position now isn't she?
S2 (07:09):
She pretty much is. Look, there's a really interesting thing
that's happening inside the coalition at the moment that I'm
trying to keep track of and write about Jack. And
that's that. There's a real split in the national right
or conservative faction of the party between a younger generation
who want the party to be pragmatic. Some of these
guys actually do support having targets. And then there's a
sort of an older generation of MPs, if you like,
(07:31):
who are just not net zero. It can't happen at
any cost. It can't happen at all. Type. Yeah. I
don't know how they're going to resolve this, but this
is the kind of at its heart, this is the
battle that's going on for the soul of the Liberal
Party at the moment. And Susan Lee. Unfortunately, sitting on
top of that much reduced pile of MPs. You know
that party room of MPs and it's a powder keg.
S1 (07:52):
And she does not want to be the leader who
presides over basically a split in the coalition or even
a split in the Liberal Party over this issue. But
if she signs up to the net zero target, her
own leadership is going to be under threat. I mean,
that seems pretty clear. But if she doesn't, then, as
you've just said, the liberals are perhaps consigning themselves to
a very, very, very long period in opposition. I just
(08:13):
do want to note, though, that the liberals are kind
of getting a little bit more coherent, I would say,
in their arguments against net zero. So they're sort of now,
from what I can gather, they're saying, you know, it's
going to push up electricity costs. It already has the
race to to lower emissions. Emissions are not going down anyway.
You know, the government hasn't succeeded so far in pushing
down emissions. And why should we pinch our economy and
(08:36):
also our household budgets when Australia only accounts for 1%
of emissions? These are all arguments that they're using. Do
you think that if they repeat those arguments again and
again and again with really credible, strong voices, like maybe
your Andrew Hastie's, they're going to cut through. After a while.
S2 (08:54):
I think there's a chance of that happening. I mean,
and you and I have both seen this happen before, jacki,
particularly that line, you know, Australia is only 1% of
the world's emissions. I mean, that is true. That was
used very effectively by Tony Abbott back in 2009 through
to 2013.
S1 (09:08):
Whatever we do, it's not going to make. It's not
it's not going to make that much difference anyway. So
why would we bother? I mean, there's a lot of
counterarguments to that, but it is a strong argument.
S2 (09:16):
Yeah. Look. Absolutely. I mean, I think one of the
most fascinating things here. Well, sorry, I'll make two points.
One is we've seen a fight in the coalition in
the last week over a number that we don't have
to reach for 25 years. They have no credible answer
to how to get there. Or should they get there,
or will they get there? Or will they try and
get there? But they can't even settle something as far
(09:36):
out down the track as that with, you know, potentially,
you know, policies that are a bit TBC. We're actually
seeing an orderly plan over the next ten years to
get to 62 to 70% emissions reductions, like they can't.
That's the harder question. What are they going to do
about do about on this? We have absolutely no idea
at all. And that's you know, that's that's where the
(09:59):
debate now moves.
S8 (10:00):
The coalition is hopelessly divided on targets for 2050. So
how can the coalition have any credibility on targets for
2035 ten?
S9 (10:08):
And I have just come out of a shadow cabinet
meeting where I can assure you there was absolutely no
division in opposing Labor's latest piece of train wreck energy policy.
And we know that we're doing this on behalf of
hard working Australians who actually expect better.
S1 (10:25):
Well, it depends how successful. I would say the coalition
is at reframing the debate and in pulling it back
onto their territory, because I just keep thinking about the
The Voice campaign. It's not a completely sort of pure analogy,
but the coalition signed up to the no Case for
the voice campaign, when the polling showed that the majority
of Australians supported The Voice and were going to vote
(10:47):
yes for it, and they basically threw a very effective campaign,
helped by various other elements and parties and lobby groups
were able to change a public opinion. So maybe they're
betting on being able to do the same thing here.
S2 (10:59):
Yeah. Look, I think that's right. And even I actually
think your analogy is quite a good one, because if
you remember back to voice, who helped lead the decision
for the coalition, like it wasn't a joint decision. Yeah.
The Nats went first and they were helped by, you know,
led by Jacinta Price in that she's a strong opponent
of net zero. She's close to Andrew Hastie. Hastie has
(11:21):
just done arguably something in terms of similar damage to
what she did when she went out and took the
Nats with her ahead of the liberals. She dragged them
kicking and screaming, and we might see that again. Or,
you know, conversely, do we see. Yeah. Do we see
a split in the parties? I mean, it's not I'm
not saying it's an 80% chance, but I don't think
(11:42):
it's a it's a not zero chance.
S1 (11:44):
If that makes sense. But I mean, the other the counter,
the counter argument I guess is that, that. Yeah, they
won the battle on on The Voice. But they didn't
win the war. I mean, it didn't it didn't help
them at all. In fact, you could almost say, you know,
it was sort of against their interest to win that
in terms of the overall party brand by the time
they got to the election.
S2 (12:00):
I think they learned the wrong lesson from the voice
that by going hard, by opposing, by standing for something,
you know, opposing for opposing sake, by using that kind
of abbotonians, if that's a word.
S1 (12:12):
Yeah.
S2 (12:13):
Form of opposition that that would propel them to the
election victory. What I think actually happened with voice is
that people didn't like it. They voted against it, but
they didn't hold it against Anthony Albanese at all. They said,
this is the thing you believed in. You gave it
a go. You didn't go on about it after you lost,
you know. Good on.
S1 (12:29):
You. And it was a discrete issue. It wasn't a
whole of economy, sort of globalized sort of issue. It
was just a discrete referendum vote. I mean, as you
referred to before, the coalition support has absolutely tanked in
key demographics, like really big demographics, like female voters, young voters.
So Gen Z and Gen Y voters. And in metropolitan
areas like they have less than a handful of metropolitan
(12:50):
seats now. And these voter cohorts are also the ones
who want to see, we know from research, also want
to see climate action. So even if they manage to
sort of the coalition takes a stand against net zero
and manages to keep the coalition or the liberals together
and even have a point of difference and maybe win
over some voters. How are they ever going to get
back those cohorts if they take a sort of anti-climate action,
(13:12):
if you like branding?
S2 (13:14):
I tend to agree with that analysis. But the counterargument that,
you know, the sort of Andrew Hastie's of this world
will make and are making is that if we don't
stand for anything, if we're just Labour lite, then people
will just vote Labour. And if we're just a small,
smaller target version of them, they'll just vote for Labour.
Whereas if we come out as hastie's trying to do
(13:35):
reframe the debate, say it's about energy security and what
have you, that might work. Yeah, I wanted to read something.
You know, I touched before on this sort of divisions
within the party between the older and younger generations. I
noticed something on Tim Wilson, who's a Melbourne MP, his
Facebook page, how he's trying to reframe the debate about
climate in a different way to Andrew Hastie, the way
(13:56):
he's talking about this and he's not Robinson Crusoe in
the party room. His approach to energy policy should be
or he believes the coalition's approach should be, net zero
price increases and net zero outages. And then after that,
we work about how we get to net zero. Now
that there's a fair bit of colouring in to be
done there, like, you know, what are the policies you'll
(14:17):
actually implement. But that is a more, I guess, suburban friendly,
punter friendly pitch, if you like, that people could take up.
S1 (14:26):
Yeah. So how would you I mean, how would you
sort of describe or characterize that pitch?
S2 (14:31):
I think that's very much more saying he's on board
with net zero and the coalition should be on board
with net zero. It's obviously providing zero details about what
your mix of energy sources, for example, would be to
get there. But it's also appealing to Australians hip pockets
without saying I'm a dinosaur who doesn't believe in climate change,
which is, I think, what some people hear when they
(14:52):
hear Andrew Hastie or Barnaby or whoever talking about their
opposition to net zero. So it's he's in a different
spot on the pendulum or spectrum, if you like.
S1 (15:02):
Yeah. What about the global situation? Because that's something that
the coalition MPs are bringing up again and again. And
they're kind of right, aren't they? They're saying, you know,
the US under Trump has pulled out of the Paris
Agreement entirely. People talk about Canada having sort of watered down,
even though they've got like a sort of centre left
government there. They've watered down their emissions reduction targets under
pressure from from the right, from the conservatives. I mean,
(15:25):
are we seeing a bit of a global retreat on
this issue, and could that leave Australia out on a
bit of a limb.
S2 (15:30):
Look, we are seeing a global retreat. Absolutely. The war
in Ukraine has played a significant role in that, too, Jackie,
because you've seen countries like Germany who are on track
to decommission nuclear power stations, suddenly have to turn back
to coal fired power stations, which is obviously not a
solution for the long term. We've seen the UK start
to retreat in the form of the conservative opposition, from
(15:52):
its commitment to net zero and climate action. I think
China's target is net zero by 2060, so they're already
not on the same trajectory. As, you know, Western nations
have been. I think India is roughly in the same basket. Look,
it's not just the US that this is happening in
that trade off, that eternal fight between do you want
to do something for the environment? Oh yeah, that sounds great.
(16:14):
Do you want to pay out of your own pocket
to do something for the environment? Yeah, I'm not so
sure about that. That's at the heart of what's going
on here, I think.
S1 (16:21):
Yeah. So the government we saw them on Thursday try
to particularly Chalmers I thought just try to be really
upbeat about it. And you know Chalmers was basically saying
there's going to be money in your pocket. Like they
talked about an analysis, which, you know, I mean, there
was a blizzard of numbers going around, but they talked
about their analysis being that each Australian would themselves sort
of be enriched by tens of thousands of dollars a
(16:44):
year under the economic modelling scenario. I mean, what are
the risks for the government here if they're making those
sort of promises and saying this is a golden economic opportunity,
this is going to be wonderful. We're going to have a,
you know, a brave new, a brave new dawn. And
then people are like, actually, my my electricity is really
expensive and we're having power outages or whatever the consequences
(17:05):
of this transition might be.
S2 (17:07):
Yeah. Look, I haven't had a chance to go through
all the Treasurer's, um, or the Treasury's modelling yet. Jack. Well, you.
S1 (17:13):
Can work on that over the weekend. I think there's.
S2 (17:15):
A few graphs and stuff in my assignments. Due Monday. No, um,
I a few numbers that I did see that I've
read that sort of stood out to me, um, to
get to the 62 to 70% target. We need to
get about 50% of car sales to be EVs by 2035.
We need to double the number of solar panels on
residential roofs. We need to triple the amount of solar
(17:38):
in commercial buildings. Yeah, I think it's like, say 6%
cut in emissions. Agricultural emissions, about 15% more anticipated to
be needed in the electricity sector overall. A number that
I saw that I didn't understand at all. So 62
to 70% reduction means, I think it was a 72
to 81% reduction per capita or per Australian. Right. Which
(18:01):
is a lot. So in theory maybe Treasury. And again
I haven't read the modelling, but perhaps they're saying you'll
be better off because the chances are we'll all have
solar panels so we'll all have cheaper electricity. Yeah. Maybe
that's how they got to the number. Yeah, I don't know.
S1 (18:15):
Yeah. We'll all be cycling to work. And, um, I
don't know exactly. Diligently, um, sorting our paper from our
tin in the recycling bin. That's not part of emissions.
But you know what I'm talking about.
S2 (18:26):
Yeah.
S1 (18:27):
Yes, yes. I mean, that was one of the interesting
things that Chris Bowen actually said was that he sort
of tried to almost do kind of like a this
is a war effort kind of thing. Like we're counting
on every Australian. It's not just the government. Private investment
is going to lead this, which was sort of a
liberal lite kind of line, I thought. Private investment is
going to lead this. And also individual Australians are all
going to have to do their part. And I suppose
(18:49):
that that is true, like all of us will have
to put our money where our mouth is if we
want emissions to come down, if we actually support this cause.
S2 (18:55):
Yeah. Look, that's absolutely right. And if I can take
a step back, you just you touched on something there
that I don't think we've covered yet. The line of
the day or the catchphrase of the day was ambitious
but achievable, ambitious but achievable. You know, I think the
PM said at some point about we're not on a
crusade or whatever it might be like. We're not going
beyond 70%. We're doing what the the science and the
(19:16):
economic modelling says we can do in an affordable enough way,
essentially politically, What labor is doing is quite smart with this,
this rhetoric. They're playing themselves in the center. They're positioning
the greens out as a far left. The liberals and
the liberals are frankly helping this by fighting amongst themselves.
They're over on the far right where the sensible guys
(19:36):
in the middle. Trust us, you know, this will be orderly.
Here's the modelling. Let's see how it plays out over
the next ten years.
S1 (19:43):
Yeah, absolutely. And you know, the global uncertainty and also
just the power of bill shock I think, you know,
is not to be underestimated. And the word that you
made up on this podcast earlier, Aberdonian politics has shown
us the power of Bill shock is strong and very
effective in the electorate. James, that's been so interesting. Thank
you for coming on. Thank you for inventing a new word.
(20:03):
We're going to take it up. We'll put it in
the Inside Politics dictionary.
S2 (20:07):
On that, on that Aberdonian thought, I'll never forget driving
through Halls Creek in north western Western Australia in the
middle of that campaign, like two months before the 2010 election,
stopping in a pub to get a beer, and the
first thing the publican starts talking to me about is
the carbon tax and how it's pushed up his bills.
And Tony Abbott, to his credit, you know, in one sense,
(20:28):
had been campaigning so effectively that had permeated all the
way through to Halls Creek in far flung WA.
S1 (20:34):
Yeah. There you go. Thanks, James. See you soon.
S2 (20:36):
Thanks, Jack.
S1 (20:39):
Today's episode was produced by Chee Wong. Our executive producer
is Tammy Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you
listen to your podcasts and to stay up to date
with all the politics, news and exclusives, visit The Age
and The Sydney Morning Herald websites. To support our journalism,
(21:02):
subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe.
I'm Jacqueline Maley, thank you for listening.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is inside politics. I'm Jacqueline Maley, it's Friday, September 19th.
This week, the government announced its 2035 emissions reduction target,
committing Australia to climate action despite a retreat from the
US and some other countries. Meanwhile, the coalition looked a
(00:22):
lot like it was about to take up arms in
the climate wars. Again, our federal political correspondent, Paul Circle
has come down with tonsillitis this week, so we're giving
him a much needed rest. And we warmly welcome chief
political commentator James Massola. Hi, James.
S2 (00:37):
Hi, jacks. Good to be with you.
S1 (00:43):
James. On Thursday, the government announced its emissions reduction target
for 2035. So this is an interim target to get
us to net zero by 2050. And it was 62
to 70% in reductions.
S3 (00:54):
This is a responsible target backed by the science backed
by a practical plan to get there and built on
proven technology.
S1 (01:04):
So what does it mean?
S2 (01:05):
Look, I mean, this is something that's been much delayed,
the 2035 targets. When we signed up to the Paris
climate deal, part of what we signed up to was
to set targets each five years. That's what this is
basically the thinking being, Jack, that you can't go from
standard or current 2020 emissions levels or 20 tens emission
levels straight down to zero. You have to do it
(01:27):
as a sort of an orderly trajectory, if you like.
And so, you know, that's what we're seeing here today.
We've had a 43% by 2030. We now see 62%
to 70% reduction by 2035. What does it mean? It
means us signing up to do more things, more, take
more steps in different sectors of the Australian economy to
(01:48):
reduce emissions so that we don't sort of have to
go off a cliff in 2049, if you like, and
suddenly de-industrialize.
S1 (01:55):
Yeah, like a journalist with a deadline who starts writing
at sort of five minutes to midnight. Well, you and
I have never done that. No. So obviously, the climate
and energy minister, Chris Bowen, and the Prime Minister and
the treasurer and the head of the Climate Change Authority
all gave this press conference on Thursday, and they announced
$7 billion in funds to put into a sort of
pool to help business and industry achieve the target. Jim
(02:18):
Chalmers said it was a golden economic opportunity. They said
it would be an orderly transition, very much in contrast
to what they said the coalition had done, which was
a disorderly, kind of chaotic transition that was no good
for anyone. I want to talk about the coalition because
even before the target was announced on Thursday, we saw
members of the coalition get right out in front of
(02:39):
it and start laying out their opposition not to the
interim target, but to the overall target of net zero
by 2050, which is what we've signed up to under
the Paris Agreement. Andrew Hastie, the shadow home affairs minister
and prominent WA conservative, was the first sort of cab
out of the rank. What did he have to say, James?
S2 (02:57):
What? Andrew Hastie said, basically, Jack was if the coalition
remained committed to net zero by 2050, his position on
the frontbench would be untenable and he would have to resign.
S4 (03:09):
If Susan Lee, though, supports net zero by 2050. Where
does that leave you?
S5 (03:17):
That leaves me without a job.
S2 (03:20):
Because he just couldn't ever bring himself to support that target.
S5 (03:23):
Um, you know, I've nailed my colours to the mast.
I went on four corners and I said, the net
zero policy is a straitjacket for our economy and our country.
And I believe that I'm actually quite passionate about it.
S2 (03:34):
In one sense, that's a statement of fact. We already
know as well that that's what Andrew Hastie thinks, in
the sense that he's been very vocal in his opposition
to the 2050 target for net zero target for some time.
S1 (03:46):
He said it would be an economic straitjacket for the nation,
which is exactly the opposite of what Chalmers said.
S2 (03:52):
Yeah. Look. Exactly. Chalmers modelling talked about billions or I
think even close to trillions in extra GDP generated through
to 2050. If we pursue the so-called orderly transition model,
which is what Labor's doing.
S6 (04:05):
The baseline scenario would see our economy $2.2 trillion bigger
by 2050, an extra $36,000 per person wealthier with 5.1
million more jobs and investment up 80%. Now that's the
baseline scenario.
S2 (04:23):
Which Hastie thinks it's a disaster, he says we should
be putting consumers first. He wants Australia to be an
energy superpower, he says. You know, we've gone from having
some of the cheapest electricity in the world to some
of the most expensive. He wants to reframe the debate around,
I guess, cost to household retail to manufacturing cost to business.
It's very retail. Yeah, exactly.
S1 (04:42):
Yeah, yeah. And I want to get on to that
strategy later, because I think it's really interesting. And it
could be really effective for the coalition. But just so
Andrew Hastie comes out at the beginning of the week
and then he's backed up by Senator Jonathon Duniam of Tasmania,
who said that there would be a mass exodus from
the coalition if the coalition signed up to net zero
at any cost.
S7 (05:01):
Well, look, if we just said net zero at any
cost by 2050, I think you'd find there'd be a
mass exodus. The reality is.
S1 (05:09):
And then towards the end of the week, I just
started hearing this phrase a lot more at any cost.
We're not going to go for net zero at any cost.
Is this their new line, James? Because Sussan Ley also
trotted it out when she gave a talk this week
I think on Wednesday.
S2 (05:22):
Yeah. Look I think that's right. Other MPs indeed have
come out and supported Hastie and Duniam as well and
said we need to junk this policy. Now, of course,
the context here, Jack, is that the coalition plan is
to have a year long review led by Dan Tehan
of climate policy, so they can all get together, hold
hands and agree on some. Well, you know, whatever the
(05:43):
policy might be. Yeah, there's a whole bunch of people
in the coalition who think the price of entry back
into metropolitan seats of which they hold almost none. Now
is to have a credible climate policy to stay committed
to 2050 and net zero emissions. And then there's a
whole bunch of people who think, no way this is
economic suicide. We cannot do this. I don't see how
that year long review, how it doesn't get crunched down
(06:06):
into a couple more weeks. And when we return to
Parliament in October, the coalition will have, I believe, I
understand they'll have to have some kind of a policy
to talk about, because at the moment they're trying to
reframe the debate as you as you've just touched on
the at any cost thing. And I think that's Susan
Lee recognising that the parameters, if you like, in which
(06:26):
within which she has to work, but they need they've
got they've got nothing to show.
S1 (06:30):
Yeah. It's a question now of how long they can
repeat that line for. We are not going to go
for net zero at any cost. Well what is the cost.
Are you going to go for net zero at all.
Like they're going to be facing these questions again and
again and again, particularly when Parliament returns, as you say.
But it doesn't look like Hastie has done this coincidentally,
or just because, you know, he happened to be asked.
On the fly. It looks quite strategic. And his colleague
(06:53):
or his sort of factional colleague, Senator Duniam, has come
out very much in concert with him. And we've seen obviously,
the Nats come out in concert as well on this
issue and say that basically they're never going to support
net zero. So Sussan Ley is kind of in an
impossible position now isn't she?
S2 (07:09):
She pretty much is. Look, there's a really interesting thing
that's happening inside the coalition at the moment that I'm
trying to keep track of and write about Jack. And
that's that. There's a real split in the national right
or conservative faction of the party between a younger generation
who want the party to be pragmatic. Some of these
guys actually do support having targets. And then there's a
sort of an older generation of MPs, if you like,
(07:31):
who are just not net zero. It can't happen at
any cost. It can't happen at all. Type. Yeah. I
don't know how they're going to resolve this, but this
is the kind of at its heart, this is the
battle that's going on for the soul of the Liberal
Party at the moment. And Susan Lee. Unfortunately, sitting on
top of that much reduced pile of MPs. You know
that party room of MPs and it's a powder keg.
S1 (07:52):
And she does not want to be the leader who
presides over basically a split in the coalition or even
a split in the Liberal Party over this issue. But
if she signs up to the net zero target, her
own leadership is going to be under threat. I mean,
that seems pretty clear. But if she doesn't, then, as
you've just said, the liberals are perhaps consigning themselves to
a very, very, very long period in opposition. I just
(08:13):
do want to note, though, that the liberals are kind
of getting a little bit more coherent, I would say,
in their arguments against net zero. So they're sort of now,
from what I can gather, they're saying, you know, it's
going to push up electricity costs. It already has the
race to to lower emissions. Emissions are not going down anyway.
You know, the government hasn't succeeded so far in pushing
down emissions. And why should we pinch our economy and
(08:36):
also our household budgets when Australia only accounts for 1%
of emissions? These are all arguments that they're using. Do
you think that if they repeat those arguments again and
again and again with really credible, strong voices, like maybe
your Andrew Hastie's, they're going to cut through. After a while.
S2 (08:54):
I think there's a chance of that happening. I mean,
and you and I have both seen this happen before, jacki,
particularly that line, you know, Australia is only 1% of
the world's emissions. I mean, that is true. That was
used very effectively by Tony Abbott back in 2009 through
to 2013.
S1 (09:08):
Whatever we do, it's not going to make. It's not
it's not going to make that much difference anyway. So
why would we bother? I mean, there's a lot of
counterarguments to that, but it is a strong argument.
S2 (09:16):
Yeah. Look. Absolutely. I mean, I think one of the
most fascinating things here. Well, sorry, I'll make two points.
One is we've seen a fight in the coalition in
the last week over a number that we don't have
to reach for 25 years. They have no credible answer
to how to get there. Or should they get there,
or will they get there? Or will they try and
get there? But they can't even settle something as far
(09:36):
out down the track as that with, you know, potentially,
you know, policies that are a bit TBC. We're actually
seeing an orderly plan over the next ten years to
get to 62 to 70% emissions reductions, like they can't.
That's the harder question. What are they going to do
about do about on this? We have absolutely no idea
at all. And that's you know, that's that's where the
(09:59):
debate now moves.
S8 (10:00):
The coalition is hopelessly divided on targets for 2050. So
how can the coalition have any credibility on targets for
2035 ten?
S9 (10:08):
And I have just come out of a shadow cabinet
meeting where I can assure you there was absolutely no
division in opposing Labor's latest piece of train wreck energy policy.
And we know that we're doing this on behalf of
hard working Australians who actually expect better.
S1 (10:25):
Well, it depends how successful. I would say the coalition
is at reframing the debate and in pulling it back
onto their territory, because I just keep thinking about the
The Voice campaign. It's not a completely sort of pure analogy,
but the coalition signed up to the no Case for
the voice campaign, when the polling showed that the majority
of Australians supported The Voice and were going to vote
(10:47):
yes for it, and they basically threw a very effective campaign,
helped by various other elements and parties and lobby groups
were able to change a public opinion. So maybe they're
betting on being able to do the same thing here.
S2 (10:59):
Yeah. Look, I think that's right. And even I actually
think your analogy is quite a good one, because if
you remember back to voice, who helped lead the decision
for the coalition, like it wasn't a joint decision. Yeah.
The Nats went first and they were helped by, you know,
led by Jacinta Price in that she's a strong opponent
of net zero. She's close to Andrew Hastie. Hastie has
(11:21):
just done arguably something in terms of similar damage to
what she did when she went out and took the
Nats with her ahead of the liberals. She dragged them
kicking and screaming, and we might see that again. Or,
you know, conversely, do we see. Yeah. Do we see
a split in the parties? I mean, it's not I'm
not saying it's an 80% chance, but I don't think
(11:42):
it's a it's a not zero chance.
S1 (11:44):
If that makes sense. But I mean, the other the counter,
the counter argument I guess is that, that. Yeah, they
won the battle on on The Voice. But they didn't
win the war. I mean, it didn't it didn't help
them at all. In fact, you could almost say, you know,
it was sort of against their interest to win that
in terms of the overall party brand by the time
they got to the election.
S2 (12:00):
I think they learned the wrong lesson from the voice
that by going hard, by opposing, by standing for something,
you know, opposing for opposing sake, by using that kind
of abbotonians, if that's a word.
S1 (12:12):
Yeah.
S2 (12:13):
Form of opposition that that would propel them to the
election victory. What I think actually happened with voice is
that people didn't like it. They voted against it, but
they didn't hold it against Anthony Albanese at all. They said,
this is the thing you believed in. You gave it
a go. You didn't go on about it after you lost,
you know. Good on.
S1 (12:29):
You. And it was a discrete issue. It wasn't a
whole of economy, sort of globalized sort of issue. It
was just a discrete referendum vote. I mean, as you
referred to before, the coalition support has absolutely tanked in
key demographics, like really big demographics, like female voters, young voters.
So Gen Z and Gen Y voters. And in metropolitan
areas like they have less than a handful of metropolitan
(12:50):
seats now. And these voter cohorts are also the ones
who want to see, we know from research, also want
to see climate action. So even if they manage to
sort of the coalition takes a stand against net zero
and manages to keep the coalition or the liberals together
and even have a point of difference and maybe win
over some voters. How are they ever going to get
back those cohorts if they take a sort of anti-climate action,
(13:12):
if you like branding?
S2 (13:14):
I tend to agree with that analysis. But the counterargument that,
you know, the sort of Andrew Hastie's of this world
will make and are making is that if we don't
stand for anything, if we're just Labour lite, then people
will just vote Labour. And if we're just a small,
smaller target version of them, they'll just vote for Labour.
Whereas if we come out as hastie's trying to do
(13:35):
reframe the debate, say it's about energy security and what
have you, that might work. Yeah, I wanted to read something.
You know, I touched before on this sort of divisions
within the party between the older and younger generations. I
noticed something on Tim Wilson, who's a Melbourne MP, his
Facebook page, how he's trying to reframe the debate about
climate in a different way to Andrew Hastie, the way
(13:56):
he's talking about this and he's not Robinson Crusoe in
the party room. His approach to energy policy should be
or he believes the coalition's approach should be, net zero
price increases and net zero outages. And then after that,
we work about how we get to net zero. Now
that there's a fair bit of colouring in to be
done there, like, you know, what are the policies you'll
(14:17):
actually implement. But that is a more, I guess, suburban friendly,
punter friendly pitch, if you like, that people could take up.
S1 (14:26):
Yeah. So how would you I mean, how would you
sort of describe or characterize that pitch?
S2 (14:31):
I think that's very much more saying he's on board
with net zero and the coalition should be on board
with net zero. It's obviously providing zero details about what
your mix of energy sources, for example, would be to
get there. But it's also appealing to Australians hip pockets
without saying I'm a dinosaur who doesn't believe in climate change,
which is, I think, what some people hear when they
(14:52):
hear Andrew Hastie or Barnaby or whoever talking about their
opposition to net zero. So it's he's in a different
spot on the pendulum or spectrum, if you like.
S1 (15:02):
Yeah. What about the global situation? Because that's something that
the coalition MPs are bringing up again and again. And
they're kind of right, aren't they? They're saying, you know,
the US under Trump has pulled out of the Paris
Agreement entirely. People talk about Canada having sort of watered down,
even though they've got like a sort of centre left
government there. They've watered down their emissions reduction targets under
pressure from from the right, from the conservatives. I mean,
(15:25):
are we seeing a bit of a global retreat on
this issue, and could that leave Australia out on a
bit of a limb.
S2 (15:30):
Look, we are seeing a global retreat. Absolutely. The war
in Ukraine has played a significant role in that, too, Jackie,
because you've seen countries like Germany who are on track
to decommission nuclear power stations, suddenly have to turn back
to coal fired power stations, which is obviously not a
solution for the long term. We've seen the UK start
to retreat in the form of the conservative opposition, from
(15:52):
its commitment to net zero and climate action. I think
China's target is net zero by 2060, so they're already
not on the same trajectory. As, you know, Western nations
have been. I think India is roughly in the same basket. Look,
it's not just the US that this is happening in
that trade off, that eternal fight between do you want
to do something for the environment? Oh yeah, that sounds great.
(16:14):
Do you want to pay out of your own pocket
to do something for the environment? Yeah, I'm not so
sure about that. That's at the heart of what's going
on here, I think.
S1 (16:21):
Yeah. So the government we saw them on Thursday try
to particularly Chalmers I thought just try to be really
upbeat about it. And you know Chalmers was basically saying
there's going to be money in your pocket. Like they
talked about an analysis, which, you know, I mean, there
was a blizzard of numbers going around, but they talked
about their analysis being that each Australian would themselves sort
of be enriched by tens of thousands of dollars a
(16:44):
year under the economic modelling scenario. I mean, what are
the risks for the government here if they're making those
sort of promises and saying this is a golden economic opportunity,
this is going to be wonderful. We're going to have a,
you know, a brave new, a brave new dawn. And
then people are like, actually, my my electricity is really
expensive and we're having power outages or whatever the consequences
(17:05):
of this transition might be.
S2 (17:07):
Yeah. Look, I haven't had a chance to go through
all the Treasurer's, um, or the Treasury's modelling yet. Jack. Well, you.
S1 (17:13):
Can work on that over the weekend. I think there's.
S2 (17:15):
A few graphs and stuff in my assignments. Due Monday. No, um,
I a few numbers that I did see that I've
read that sort of stood out to me, um, to
get to the 62 to 70% target. We need to
get about 50% of car sales to be EVs by 2035.
We need to double the number of solar panels on
residential roofs. We need to triple the amount of solar
(17:38):
in commercial buildings. Yeah, I think it's like, say 6%
cut in emissions. Agricultural emissions, about 15% more anticipated to
be needed in the electricity sector overall. A number that
I saw that I didn't understand at all. So 62
to 70% reduction means, I think it was a 72
to 81% reduction per capita or per Australian. Right. Which
(18:01):
is a lot. So in theory maybe Treasury. And again
I haven't read the modelling, but perhaps they're saying you'll
be better off because the chances are we'll all have
solar panels so we'll all have cheaper electricity. Yeah. Maybe
that's how they got to the number. Yeah, I don't know.
S1 (18:15):
Yeah. We'll all be cycling to work. And, um, I
don't know exactly. Diligently, um, sorting our paper from our
tin in the recycling bin. That's not part of emissions.
But you know what I'm talking about.
S2 (18:26):
Yeah.
S1 (18:27):
Yes, yes. I mean, that was one of the interesting
things that Chris Bowen actually said was that he sort
of tried to almost do kind of like a this
is a war effort kind of thing. Like we're counting
on every Australian. It's not just the government. Private investment
is going to lead this, which was sort of a
liberal lite kind of line, I thought. Private investment is
going to lead this. And also individual Australians are all
going to have to do their part. And I suppose
(18:49):
that that is true, like all of us will have
to put our money where our mouth is if we
want emissions to come down, if we actually support this cause.
S2 (18:55):
Yeah. Look, that's absolutely right. And if I can take
a step back, you just you touched on something there
that I don't think we've covered yet. The line of
the day or the catchphrase of the day was ambitious
but achievable, ambitious but achievable. You know, I think the
PM said at some point about we're not on a
crusade or whatever it might be like. We're not going
beyond 70%. We're doing what the the science and the
(19:16):
economic modelling says we can do in an affordable enough way,
essentially politically, What labor is doing is quite smart with this,
this rhetoric. They're playing themselves in the center. They're positioning
the greens out as a far left. The liberals and
the liberals are frankly helping this by fighting amongst themselves.
They're over on the far right where the sensible guys
(19:36):
in the middle. Trust us, you know, this will be orderly.
Here's the modelling. Let's see how it plays out over
the next ten years.
S1 (19:43):
Yeah, absolutely. And you know, the global uncertainty and also
just the power of bill shock I think, you know,
is not to be underestimated. And the word that you
made up on this podcast earlier, Aberdonian politics has shown
us the power of Bill shock is strong and very
effective in the electorate. James, that's been so interesting. Thank
you for coming on. Thank you for inventing a new word.
(20:03):
We're going to take it up. We'll put it in
the Inside Politics dictionary.
S2 (20:07):
On that, on that Aberdonian thought, I'll never forget driving
through Halls Creek in north western Western Australia in the
middle of that campaign, like two months before the 2010 election,
stopping in a pub to get a beer, and the
first thing the publican starts talking to me about is
the carbon tax and how it's pushed up his bills.
And Tony Abbott, to his credit, you know, in one sense,
(20:28):
had been campaigning so effectively that had permeated all the
way through to Halls Creek in far flung WA.
S1 (20:34):
Yeah. There you go. Thanks, James. See you soon.
S2 (20:36):
Thanks, Jack.
S1 (20:39):
Today's episode was produced by Chee Wong. Our executive producer
is Tammy Mills, and Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
follow Inside Politics on Apple, Spotify or anywhere else you
listen to your podcasts and to stay up to date
with all the politics, news and exclusives, visit The Age
and The Sydney Morning Herald websites. To support our journalism,
(21:02):
subscribe to us by visiting The Age or smh.com.au. Subscribe.
I'm Jacqueline Maley, thank you for listening.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com