November 7, 2025 • 15 mins
Back in 2021, the Coalition was united in their support for net zero, with then-prime minister Scott Morrison describing the plan as “100 per cent supported by the government”.
Now, just four years later, the Nationals have walked away from it – and the Liberal Party is set to follow. Despite personally supporting net zero, Sussan Ley will scrap it in an attempt to hold on to the leadership.
But with the party’s right winning the battle on climate policy, they’re also set to win the war within the Liberal Party. Bets are now on about when, not if, Ley will lose her job.
Today, contributing editor of The New Daily Amy Remeikis, on the Coalition’s civil war over climate policy, and how it lets Labor off the hook.
If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support.
Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram
Guest: Contributing editor of The New Daily, Amy Remeikis
Photo: AAP Image/Mick Tsikas
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
His plan is one hundred percent supported by our government.
One supported by our government. It was resolved by.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Cabin Once upon a time in the not too distant past,
a Liberal leader frantic cameras dispute the economic benefits of
net zero.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
The Coalition is rock solid on pursuing this plan because
this protects jobs, it protects livelihoods, and it protects a
way of life for rural and regional Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Now, just four years later, despite supporting it herself, Susan
Lee is set to dump net zero so her party
won't dump her. But if the party is right winning
the battle on climate policy, they're also set to win
the war within the Liberal Party. Betsy Now on when,
not if, Lee will lose leadership. I'm Daniel James and
(00:56):
you're listening to seven AM today. Contributing editor of the
New Daily, Amy Remikiez on the coalition's civil war on
climate policy and how it lets labor off the hook.
It's Saturday, November eight Amy, Susan Lee looks set to
(01:21):
walk away from net zero to save her leadership. Tell
me about how the fight over net zero is currently
playing out within the Liberal Party.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Well, it actually started about six months ago, this most
recent blow up over climate when the Nationals started making
a lot of noise about net zero, and Barnaby Joyce
and Matt Canavan in particular, we're out and about saying
we don't want to be part of net zero. We
think it's costing too much money. We want to bring
this policy down.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
Currently we're not getting a good deal from net zero.
It's been a bit of a scam where bankers and
big business makes money and small businesses, families have to
pay more. Power prices have gone up forty percent since
we signed up to net zero, both electrics and.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
We saw that when the National Party threatened to walk
away from the coalition almost as soon as Susan.
Speaker 5 (02:10):
Lee became a leader.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
I mean, David Little Proud was trying to contact Susan
Lee as she was trying to handle her mother's death.
It was brutal and it hasn't really stopped being that brutal.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
It's just gone a little bit more. Under the covers.
Speaker 6 (02:28):
Are United Front, the National Party in lockstep on abandoning
a net zero targety. A little while ago informed the
Opposition leader Susan Lee of the National Party's decision to
scrap net zero by twenty fifty.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
So the Nationals have officially walked away from net zero,
which is where we always knew that they were going
to go.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
We continue to believe that we need to reduce emissions,
but we've got to do it in a better fare
and cheaper way for all Austrains.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
The right of the Liberal Party want to follow, and
they're getting very very low about wanting to follow.
Speaker 5 (03:01):
So that's your angus.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Taylor, You're Andrew Hasty, You're Sarah Henderson, mikayliea Cash.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
We can't keep supporting targets it are unachievable or distructive
to our economy and our way of life. I think
we're going to destroy our country on that current trajectory,
and that's why I'm so opposed to sticking with net
zero and Labour's climate.
Speaker 6 (03:20):
I very much hope that my Libul colleagues support the
position where we turn our back entirely on Labour's terrible
net zero laws.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
And then you have Lee, who is supported by the
moderates in the party room, trying to walk this line
where she's saying, Okay, let's have a look.
Speaker 5 (03:39):
At the review and see what we can do.
Speaker 6 (03:41):
I said when I became leader, we would develop an
energy policy that delivered a stable, reliable grid for affordable
energy for households and businesses, and we'd play our part
responsibly in reducing emissions. And those are still the two
fundamentals in the energy policy that we are producing.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
The moderates really pushing to maintain some sort of link
to net zero, and the right of the party saying
if you do any of that, we're going to destroy you.
Speaker 5 (04:12):
So it's an absolute mess.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
So the key argument for those in the party don't
support next zeros apparently around cost and they're saying that
is driving our energy prices. So is there any evidence
behind that claim and where is that assertion coming from.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
So it's a bit complicated that these things always are.
I mean, our energy mix and what makes our prices
is a mix of gas and coal and renewables, and
renewables are by far the cheapest source of power in
our network at the moment. It's one of the reasons
why the government is saying, well, we can give you
three hours free power because there's so much renewables in
(04:52):
the system, it's so cheap they can afford to do that.
Speaker 5 (04:56):
Coal and gas are still very expensive.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
And every time that there's in, every single time that
there's some sort of waves in the energy market, because
our gas in particular is exposed to the international prices,
our energy price goes up. So it's not because of renewables.
It's because of the amount of gas and coal still
in the system, and we haven't transitioned to a point
(05:19):
where we don't need the coal.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
And gas just yet. That's the reason why power prices
are so high.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
That doesn't really fit the narrative of what the Nationals
and the right of the Liberal Party want people to know.
They want people to think like, oh, it's the transition
that's costing you all of this money, when we know
just from looking at the evidence that that is not true.
They're also pulling this number seven to nine trillion dollars,
which sounds really scary, but it comes from a report
(05:48):
that this big agency, McKinsey did where they were looking
at the cost of transition, and that figure that seven
to nine trillion dollars was about investment. The Liberals who
want to get rid of net zero, and what the
Nationals are not telling you is that this isn't a cost.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
It's investment.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
An investment, as the report laid out, also reaps rewards.
It also has benefits, so you get money back from that.
It also didn't take into account the cost of doing nothing,
which is very very similar to the cost of investment.
So they've cherry picked these figures from the report to say, oh,
this is going to cost x amount when it's just
(06:29):
not true.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
So is this a coordinated, internationally devised strategy to retain
fossil fuels as part of the energy mix across the globe?
Is this something that's been coordinated When.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
You look at the talking points, it absolutely is.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
All of these conversations happen globally and you see the
same lines and the same flash points pop up all
over the world. So at the moment we have UK
politicians who are following Nigel Farage, who's their version of
Pauline Hanson threatening to lie down in front of bulldozers
to stop a solar farm from being built. It is
(07:06):
all the same lines that are just being dolled out
by these people. And we know that it's being funded
by fossil fuel vested interests because we've seen evidence of
that across the globe. This is not unique to Australia,
and often you can see what's coming down the pipeline
by watching what is making news in the United States
and the UK, and you can be like, oh, okay,
(07:27):
we're going to have big fights about wind farms very
very soon.
Speaker 5 (07:30):
And sure enough we're having fights about wind.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Farms or wind duils, is Donald Trump calls them. Coming
up the climate Wars origin story.
Speaker 5 (07:55):
Amy.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
This fight inside the Liberal Party over nit zero and
more broadly about hat to respond to climate change, of course,
is not new. So how far back does it actually go.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
It actually goes back to Keating, so to a Labor
government in the early nineteen nineties where they came up
with the no regrets policy. And the no regrets policy
was happening at the time when the world was trying
to keep emissions to below nineteen eighty eight levels.
Speaker 5 (08:23):
So we've blown.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Past that, but at the time that was the goal
and coal Keating and the Labor government said okay, we'll
take part in this, but only if it doesn't impact
our agriculture and our coal mining industries, because these are
the two biggest industries Australia has.
Speaker 5 (08:41):
The rest of the world.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
Went okay, fair enough, and they gave all sorts of little,
you know, allowances that allow Australia to use things like
different ways of using the land. So promising not to
do land clearing, or promising to just keep different areas
of vegetation going or planting trees could all count to
Australia not having to cut emissions. Then John Howard is
(09:04):
elected in nineteen ninety six and he's all like, this
is brilliant, I can really do something with this, and
he absolutely dis turbocharged that policy.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Listeners may remember that the.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Kyoto Treaty was not ratified by the Howard government. That
pretty much was the world's really big first attempt to
deal with emissions, and Howard was one of the only
people to say no to that at the time. I
mean Russia ratified it before Australia did. He really made
it a climate culture war, and it was the first
(09:37):
time that we really saw how politics could derail the
science in such a comprehensive way. Not ratifying Kyoto taught
an entire generation of Australian politicians in the Liberal Party
how you can advance your own personal career by not
actually doing anything on climate, How you can really start
(09:59):
to build your own personal brand on that and we've
been stuck.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
There for the last thirty years and here we are.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
So if Lee's party doesn't support net zero, does it
make sense for her to walk away from the policy.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
It doesn't make any sense for her to walk away
from the policy. But it's also not going to save her.
There is nothing that can be done to save Susan
Lee's leadership.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
She does not have authority in the party room.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
Because Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton at least had authority
over the party room, so even though they didn't do anything,
they could still say we are going to keep the
idea of net zero, and the right of the party
had to basically just sit there and take their lumps.
Susan Lee does not have that power, and she's now
in a position where if she keeps any reference to
(10:50):
net zero, she's going to lose the support of the
right and they will do everything that they can to
bring her down. And if she gets rid of all
references to net zero, she loses the support of the moderates.
But then she's also very very reliant on polling, and
we know that the polls continue to go down for
the Liberal Party because of this sort of stuff. So
(11:11):
the Liberals went backwards in the last two elections. One
of the main reasons for that was their lack of
climate policy. If they get rid of any reference to
net zero by twenty fifty, or even just net zero,
then they're going to completely collapse in the polls, which
is when the Right will go Okay, well she's useless
and we're going to get rid of her anyway. There
(11:32):
is no saving her leadership. It may not be before Christmas,
but it's not going to be much longer after that.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
And in the broader scheme of things, what does it
mean if the Liberal Party does officially walk away from
net zero? What does it do to our politics and
to the market In.
Speaker 5 (11:48):
Terms of Australian policy.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
It doesn't actually do a lot because on the numbers
it is almost impossible I say almost because nothing is,
but almost impossible for the Liberal Party to win government
at the next election.
Speaker 5 (12:02):
So we've got labor for at least six years.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
That means that our energy transition is well underway by
the time that the coalition, if it still exists, is
electorally competitive again. So it doesn't really do anything in
terms of policy in the short term. It does impact
on the market and whether or not they feel secure
about investing in Australia, but it also just keeps the
(12:26):
climate wars going. So we're not focusing on what the
Labor government is or isn't doing, and they're pretty much
just doing the bare minimum. We're not pushing labor to
follow the science and stop coal and gas mining. We're
having a conversation again about what the coalition is going
to do on net zero and it's just it's so
(12:48):
frustrating because we just seem stuck as a nation at
this one spot because of this one party that is
just keeping us held hostage in terms of this conversation
at the same time point that we were thirty years
ago when John Howard refused to ratify the Kyoto Convention.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
And how much longer do you think Susan Lee can
hold on for? And what do you think this fight
tells us about the future of the Liver Party itself.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Look, I mean I think they're going to let Susan
Lee hold on for as long as this mess is
around because Angus Taylor and it's most likely going to
be Angus Taylor at this stage.
Speaker 5 (13:23):
With Tim Wilson as a deputy.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
They don't want to own the mess, so they're going
to make Susan Lee stick around for as long as
they have this fight. Once the mess is sorted out,
they'll probably keep her around for a little bit longer
if she capitulates, and all signs are that she will capitulate,
and then when the polls start tanking, that's when they'll
come out and say, well, we have.
Speaker 5 (13:44):
To do this for the future of the party.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
The position the Coalition is in is that because the
Nationals have capitulated and basically turned into one nation in
the types of policies that they present in a bid
to fend off one nation in their electorates, then liberals
in inner city seats cannot fend off the Greens or
Independence because the policy, the compromised policies that they've come
(14:09):
up with, don't work in both areas. And it's an
absolute mess.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Amy, Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Seven Am is a daily show from Solstice Media. It's
made by Anigas Basto, Chris Danegate, Daniel James Ruby Jones,
Sarah mcveee, Travis Evans and Zulfet Joan. Our theme music
is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hergan of Envelope Bordier.
This has been seven am. Thanks for listening.
His plan is one hundred percent supported by our government.
One supported by our government. It was resolved by.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Cabin Once upon a time in the not too distant past,
a Liberal leader frantic cameras dispute the economic benefits of
net zero.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
The Coalition is rock solid on pursuing this plan because
this protects jobs, it protects livelihoods, and it protects a
way of life for rural and regional Australia.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Now, just four years later, despite supporting it herself, Susan
Lee is set to dump net zero so her party
won't dump her. But if the party is right winning
the battle on climate policy, they're also set to win
the war within the Liberal Party. Betsy Now on when,
not if, Lee will lose leadership. I'm Daniel James and
(00:56):
you're listening to seven AM today. Contributing editor of the
New Daily, Amy Remikiez on the coalition's civil war on
climate policy and how it lets labor off the hook.
It's Saturday, November eight Amy, Susan Lee looks set to
(01:21):
walk away from net zero to save her leadership. Tell
me about how the fight over net zero is currently
playing out within the Liberal Party.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
Well, it actually started about six months ago, this most
recent blow up over climate when the Nationals started making
a lot of noise about net zero, and Barnaby Joyce
and Matt Canavan in particular, we're out and about saying
we don't want to be part of net zero. We
think it's costing too much money. We want to bring
this policy down.
Speaker 4 (01:51):
Currently we're not getting a good deal from net zero.
It's been a bit of a scam where bankers and
big business makes money and small businesses, families have to
pay more. Power prices have gone up forty percent since
we signed up to net zero, both electrics and.
Speaker 3 (02:05):
We saw that when the National Party threatened to walk
away from the coalition almost as soon as Susan.
Speaker 5 (02:10):
Lee became a leader.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
I mean, David Little Proud was trying to contact Susan
Lee as she was trying to handle her mother's death.
It was brutal and it hasn't really stopped being that brutal.
Speaker 5 (02:24):
It's just gone a little bit more. Under the covers.
Speaker 6 (02:28):
Are United Front, the National Party in lockstep on abandoning
a net zero targety. A little while ago informed the
Opposition leader Susan Lee of the National Party's decision to
scrap net zero by twenty fifty.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
So the Nationals have officially walked away from net zero,
which is where we always knew that they were going
to go.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
We continue to believe that we need to reduce emissions,
but we've got to do it in a better fare
and cheaper way for all Austrains.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
The right of the Liberal Party want to follow, and
they're getting very very low about wanting to follow.
Speaker 5 (03:01):
So that's your angus.
Speaker 3 (03:03):
Taylor, You're Andrew Hasty, You're Sarah Henderson, mikayliea Cash.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
We can't keep supporting targets it are unachievable or distructive
to our economy and our way of life. I think
we're going to destroy our country on that current trajectory,
and that's why I'm so opposed to sticking with net
zero and Labour's climate.
Speaker 6 (03:20):
I very much hope that my Libul colleagues support the
position where we turn our back entirely on Labour's terrible
net zero laws.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
And then you have Lee, who is supported by the
moderates in the party room, trying to walk this line
where she's saying, Okay, let's have a look.
Speaker 5 (03:39):
At the review and see what we can do.
Speaker 6 (03:41):
I said when I became leader, we would develop an
energy policy that delivered a stable, reliable grid for affordable
energy for households and businesses, and we'd play our part
responsibly in reducing emissions. And those are still the two
fundamentals in the energy policy that we are producing.
Speaker 3 (04:01):
The moderates really pushing to maintain some sort of link
to net zero, and the right of the party saying
if you do any of that, we're going to destroy you.
Speaker 5 (04:12):
So it's an absolute mess.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
So the key argument for those in the party don't
support next zeros apparently around cost and they're saying that
is driving our energy prices. So is there any evidence
behind that claim and where is that assertion coming from.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
So it's a bit complicated that these things always are.
I mean, our energy mix and what makes our prices
is a mix of gas and coal and renewables, and
renewables are by far the cheapest source of power in
our network at the moment. It's one of the reasons
why the government is saying, well, we can give you
three hours free power because there's so much renewables in
(04:52):
the system, it's so cheap they can afford to do that.
Speaker 5 (04:56):
Coal and gas are still very expensive.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
And every time that there's in, every single time that
there's some sort of waves in the energy market, because
our gas in particular is exposed to the international prices,
our energy price goes up. So it's not because of renewables.
It's because of the amount of gas and coal still
in the system, and we haven't transitioned to a point
(05:19):
where we don't need the coal.
Speaker 5 (05:20):
And gas just yet. That's the reason why power prices
are so high.
Speaker 3 (05:25):
That doesn't really fit the narrative of what the Nationals
and the right of the Liberal Party want people to know.
They want people to think like, oh, it's the transition
that's costing you all of this money, when we know
just from looking at the evidence that that is not true.
They're also pulling this number seven to nine trillion dollars,
which sounds really scary, but it comes from a report
(05:48):
that this big agency, McKinsey did where they were looking
at the cost of transition, and that figure that seven
to nine trillion dollars was about investment. The Liberals who
want to get rid of net zero, and what the
Nationals are not telling you is that this isn't a cost.
Speaker 5 (06:06):
It's investment.
Speaker 3 (06:07):
An investment, as the report laid out, also reaps rewards.
It also has benefits, so you get money back from that.
It also didn't take into account the cost of doing nothing,
which is very very similar to the cost of investment.
So they've cherry picked these figures from the report to say, oh,
this is going to cost x amount when it's just
(06:29):
not true.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
So is this a coordinated, internationally devised strategy to retain
fossil fuels as part of the energy mix across the globe?
Is this something that's been coordinated When.
Speaker 5 (06:42):
You look at the talking points, it absolutely is.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
All of these conversations happen globally and you see the
same lines and the same flash points pop up all
over the world. So at the moment we have UK
politicians who are following Nigel Farage, who's their version of
Pauline Hanson threatening to lie down in front of bulldozers
to stop a solar farm from being built. It is
(07:06):
all the same lines that are just being dolled out
by these people. And we know that it's being funded
by fossil fuel vested interests because we've seen evidence of
that across the globe. This is not unique to Australia,
and often you can see what's coming down the pipeline
by watching what is making news in the United States
and the UK, and you can be like, oh, okay,
(07:27):
we're going to have big fights about wind farms very
very soon.
Speaker 5 (07:30):
And sure enough we're having fights about wind.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Farms or wind duils, is Donald Trump calls them. Coming
up the climate Wars origin story.
Speaker 5 (07:55):
Amy.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
This fight inside the Liberal Party over nit zero and
more broadly about hat to respond to climate change, of course,
is not new. So how far back does it actually go.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
It actually goes back to Keating, so to a Labor
government in the early nineteen nineties where they came up
with the no regrets policy. And the no regrets policy
was happening at the time when the world was trying
to keep emissions to below nineteen eighty eight levels.
Speaker 5 (08:23):
So we've blown.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Past that, but at the time that was the goal
and coal Keating and the Labor government said okay, we'll
take part in this, but only if it doesn't impact
our agriculture and our coal mining industries, because these are
the two biggest industries Australia has.
Speaker 5 (08:41):
The rest of the world.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
Went okay, fair enough, and they gave all sorts of little,
you know, allowances that allow Australia to use things like
different ways of using the land. So promising not to
do land clearing, or promising to just keep different areas
of vegetation going or planting trees could all count to
Australia not having to cut emissions. Then John Howard is
(09:04):
elected in nineteen ninety six and he's all like, this
is brilliant, I can really do something with this, and
he absolutely dis turbocharged that policy.
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Listeners may remember that the.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
Kyoto Treaty was not ratified by the Howard government. That
pretty much was the world's really big first attempt to
deal with emissions, and Howard was one of the only
people to say no to that at the time. I
mean Russia ratified it before Australia did. He really made
it a climate culture war, and it was the first
(09:37):
time that we really saw how politics could derail the
science in such a comprehensive way. Not ratifying Kyoto taught
an entire generation of Australian politicians in the Liberal Party
how you can advance your own personal career by not
actually doing anything on climate, How you can really start
(09:59):
to build your own personal brand on that and we've
been stuck.
Speaker 5 (10:02):
There for the last thirty years and here we are.
Speaker 2 (10:06):
So if Lee's party doesn't support net zero, does it
make sense for her to walk away from the policy.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
It doesn't make any sense for her to walk away
from the policy. But it's also not going to save her.
There is nothing that can be done to save Susan
Lee's leadership.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
She does not have authority in the party room.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
Because Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton at least had authority
over the party room, so even though they didn't do anything,
they could still say we are going to keep the
idea of net zero, and the right of the party
had to basically just sit there and take their lumps.
Susan Lee does not have that power, and she's now
in a position where if she keeps any reference to
(10:50):
net zero, she's going to lose the support of the
right and they will do everything that they can to
bring her down. And if she gets rid of all
references to net zero, she loses the support of the moderates.
But then she's also very very reliant on polling, and
we know that the polls continue to go down for
the Liberal Party because of this sort of stuff. So
(11:11):
the Liberals went backwards in the last two elections. One
of the main reasons for that was their lack of
climate policy. If they get rid of any reference to
net zero by twenty fifty, or even just net zero,
then they're going to completely collapse in the polls, which
is when the Right will go Okay, well she's useless
and we're going to get rid of her anyway. There
(11:32):
is no saving her leadership. It may not be before Christmas,
but it's not going to be much longer after that.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
And in the broader scheme of things, what does it
mean if the Liberal Party does officially walk away from
net zero? What does it do to our politics and
to the market In.
Speaker 5 (11:48):
Terms of Australian policy.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
It doesn't actually do a lot because on the numbers
it is almost impossible I say almost because nothing is,
but almost impossible for the Liberal Party to win government
at the next election.
Speaker 5 (12:02):
So we've got labor for at least six years.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
That means that our energy transition is well underway by
the time that the coalition, if it still exists, is
electorally competitive again. So it doesn't really do anything in
terms of policy in the short term. It does impact
on the market and whether or not they feel secure
about investing in Australia, but it also just keeps the
(12:26):
climate wars going. So we're not focusing on what the
Labor government is or isn't doing, and they're pretty much
just doing the bare minimum. We're not pushing labor to
follow the science and stop coal and gas mining. We're
having a conversation again about what the coalition is going
to do on net zero and it's just it's so
(12:48):
frustrating because we just seem stuck as a nation at
this one spot because of this one party that is
just keeping us held hostage in terms of this conversation
at the same time point that we were thirty years
ago when John Howard refused to ratify the Kyoto Convention.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
And how much longer do you think Susan Lee can
hold on for? And what do you think this fight
tells us about the future of the Liver Party itself.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Look, I mean I think they're going to let Susan
Lee hold on for as long as this mess is
around because Angus Taylor and it's most likely going to
be Angus Taylor at this stage.
Speaker 5 (13:23):
With Tim Wilson as a deputy.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
They don't want to own the mess, so they're going
to make Susan Lee stick around for as long as
they have this fight. Once the mess is sorted out,
they'll probably keep her around for a little bit longer
if she capitulates, and all signs are that she will capitulate,
and then when the polls start tanking, that's when they'll
come out and say, well, we have.
Speaker 5 (13:44):
To do this for the future of the party.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
The position the Coalition is in is that because the
Nationals have capitulated and basically turned into one nation in
the types of policies that they present in a bid
to fend off one nation in their electorates, then liberals
in inner city seats cannot fend off the Greens or
Independence because the policy, the compromised policies that they've come
(14:09):
up with, don't work in both areas. And it's an
absolute mess.
Speaker 2 (14:16):
Amy, Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Seven Am is a daily show from Solstice Media. It's
made by Anigas Basto, Chris Danegate, Daniel James Ruby Jones,
Sarah mcveee, Travis Evans and Zulfet Joan. Our theme music
is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hergan of Envelope Bordier.
This has been seven am. Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.